• 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!

fundamental flaw that needs to be corrected in congress.

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,578
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Whatever you believe about the shutdown it does illustrate a flaw in congress on how legislation is brought before them. A single person or minority of people should not be able to keep something off the floor. Things should be presented and voted on in congress. If they are all against it then they are all against it, but it should be presented. Any house representative should be able to bring forth a budget or bill and have it voted on. If the majority of the house finds it acceptable they vote on it. This should apply to both parties so that bills or a budget which have enough bipartisan support to pass can pass. Letting the speaker decide which legislation he wants to vote on gives him way too much power. No matter which party it is they can restrict votes on all legislation based on the desires of the people who elect them which are just the members of that congressman's district. The US is litterally being held hostage at this pointy by the minority of people who happen to be the majority in boehner's district, and that is simply unacceptable for any representative to have that sort of power.

This is obviously a flaw that needs to be corrected ASAP to stop this sort of thing from happening again. If the majority of the house were actually continuing to vote down this sort of thing then that would be better, but since it seems the majority is ready to pass a clean budget it should not be held up, and to go further than that how much legislation has been held up by boehner's or any other speaker's personal bias in the past? It is insane if a dem does it, and it is insane if a republican does it. Whatever the result of all of this shutdown becomes we have to make sure one of the effects is to eliminate the rules that prevent a vote by the house and senate based on a single person or minority hissy fit. Yes, that needs to include the filibuster.
 
Well, you missed an important point, which is that a majority of Americans do NOT want Obamacare.

That is why the Liberals are shrieking, swearing and ridiculing so desperately, they fear the actual truth, which is never a friend of the endless wacko Liberal schemes.
 
Last edited:
Well, you missed an important point, which is that a majority of Americans do NOT want Obamacare.

Thats debatable since the majority probably doesn't even know what it really is....especially conservatives.



When it's called the Obamacare they don't like it....but when it's called the Affordable Care Act they do seem to like it. So lets give it a chance, shall we? Because as time goes on, more people probably will like it. In fact they'll probably like it so much that Republicans will never be able to repeal it. hehehehe


BTW....I think the OP is talking about "up or down votes" and "filabusters"....not the ACA.
 
Last edited:
Thats debatable since the majority probably doesn't even know what it really is....especially conservatives.



When it's called the Obamacare they don't like it....but when it's called the Affordable Care Act they do seem to like it. So lets give it a chance, shall we? Because as time goes on, more people probably will like it. In fact they'll probably like it so much that Republicans will never be able to repeal it. hehehehe


BTW....I think the OP is talking about "up or down votes" and "filabusters"....not the ACA.

The "try it and see if we like it approach" would be reasonable if government programs weren't near impossible to get rid of. Even if it ends up terrible for the country, my grandkids 30 years from now will still probably end up having it.

The biggest and most obvious problem is that it doesn't add any more doctors or "supply", but increases those trying to go to doctors or "demand". If demand increases without an increase in supply, prices will go up. Throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at it is the only way to try to even it out, and that's not how grown-ups should handle finance.

If we have, for example, 1 million doctors and 200 million patients, what will happen to the cost and quality of healthcare when if we have 1 million doctors and 300 million patients?
 
Regardless, we have to get the practice of health insurance out of the private sector. Prices are only bound to go up at the expense of peoples' health.
 
The "try it and see if we like it approach" would be reasonable if government programs weren't near impossible to get rid of. Even if it ends up terrible for the country, my grandkids 30 years from now will still probably end up having it.

The biggest and most obvious problem is that it doesn't add any more doctors or "supply", but increases those trying to go to doctors or "demand". If demand increases without an increase in supply, prices will go up. Throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at it is the only way to try to even it out, and that's not how grown-ups should handle finance. If we have, for example, 1 million doctors and 200 million patients, what will happen to the cost and quality of healthcare when if we have 1 million doctors and 300 million patients?

I think you just proved my point that most don't even know what the ACA is or whats in it.


The ACA anticipated the need for more doctors.....


"...The National Health Service Corps’ Students to Service Loan Repayment Program was created by the ACA to help fourth-year medical students pay for their education in return for providing primary care services to underserved urban or rural areas. The loan awards were distributed by the National Health Service Corps and span 29 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico....<snip>.....

Recipients of these funds are required to serve three years of full-time service or six years of part-time service. The number of clinicians serving in the National Health Service Corps has nearly tripled during the past five years, according to HHS. About 10,000 primary care health care professionals are serving more than 10 million people at 14,000 health care sites....read..."

ACA starts repaying some medical student loans for primary care - amednews.com

Medical Students and Health System Reform
 
Regardless, we have to get the practice of health insurance out of the private sector. Prices are only bound to go up at the expense of peoples' health.
Holy ****!
No it does not need to be removed from the private sector, because that is exactly where it belongs.
Health care is a product of another's efforts. No one is entitled to it or should be forced to supply it for another.
 
Holy ****!
No it does not need to be removed from the private sector, because that is exactly where it belongs.
Health care is a product of another's efforts. No one is entitled to it or should be forced to supply it for another.

How does health insurance companies make their money?

1.) Sell policies to new customers.
2.) Sell more expensive policies to existing customers.
3.) Increase cost of existing premiums.
4.) Cover less health costs while charging the same premiums.
5.) Refuse to pay claims while ensuring no consequences.

That list I think consists of at least most of the ways that health insurance companies make their money. With the continuous growth paradigm of the free market, insurance companies will enact more suffering to their customers to provide a good balance sheet to investors regardless of financial expansion or contraction. Why? Because the drive of maximizing profits is the name of the game. Not just making a profit, but maximizing it. So if a health insurance company can not sign more customers, it has to use a combination of the other methods lined up above to make more money.

What happens?

Higher prices and more suffering for everyone.

I think that if health insurance is provided, it will allow more income to be spent in the economy on other things. This battles inflation for everybody. The same could be tailored but more so for education. Education is a stronger investment for obvious reasons. But if the cost of education were provided more money would be present to spend in the economy.

Not to mention we have the means to provide health insurance for everyone. It would be the humane thing to do to provide it.

Plus if everybody is insured, the cost of premiums go down.
 
Last edited:
Well, you missed an important point, which is that a majority of Americans do NOT want Obamacare.
So because you want to get rid of "Obamacare", you support the continuation of a flawed (arguably corrupt) political system? Wasn't it the same flaws that helped it get though in the first place?

I don't think the politicals want to change the system even when they're "loosing" because they know they "win" just as often anyway it's the only game they know how to play and they get paid all the same. A different political system would need different politicians and the turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas (or Thanksgiving).
 
How does health insurance companies make their money?

1.) Sell policies to new customers.
2.) Sell more expensive policies to existing customers.
3.) Increase cost of existing premiums.
4.) Cover less health costs while charging the same premiums.
5.) Refuse to pay claims while ensuring no consequences.

That list I think consists of at least most of the ways that health insurance companies make their money. With the continuous growth paradigm of the free market, insurance companies will enact more suffering to their customers to provide a good balance sheet to investors regardless of financial expansion or contraction. Why? Because the drive of maximizing profits is the name of the game. Not just making a profit, but maximizing it. So if a health insurance company can not sign more customers, it has to use a combination of the other methods lined up above to make more money.

What happens?

Higher prices and more suffering for everyone.

I think that if health insurance is provided, it will allow more income to be spent in the economy on other things. This battles inflation for everybody. The same could be tailored but more so for education. Education is a stronger investment for obvious reasons. But if the cost of education were provided more money would be present to spend in the economy.

Not to mention we have the means to provide health insurance for everyone. It would be the humane thing to do to provide it.

Plus if everybody is insured, the cost of premiums go down.

Insurance is only a method of payment, not actual access to health care.

The means you speak of is taking money from one pocket to pay for it for another, by coercion. The ACA does nothing to address the problems that actually exist that cause people not to have physical access to healthcare.

So your statement basically says you feel forcing more people to pay for 'insurance', which continues to support the very thing you are deriding, is a good thing?
 
Whatever you believe about the shutdown it does illustrate a flaw in congress on how legislation is brought before them. A single person or minority of people should not be able to keep something off the floor. Things should be presented and voted on in congress. If they are all against it then they are all against it, but it should be presented. Any house representative should be able to bring forth a budget or bill and have it voted on. If the majority of the house finds it acceptable they vote on it. This should apply to both parties so that bills or a budget which have enough bipartisan support to pass can pass. Letting the speaker decide which legislation he wants to vote on gives him way too much power. No matter which party it is they can restrict votes on all legislation based on the desires of the people who elect them which are just the members of that congressman's district. The US is litterally being held hostage at this pointy by the minority of people who happen to be the majority in boehner's district, and that is simply unacceptable for any representative to have that sort of power.

This is obviously a flaw that needs to be corrected ASAP to stop this sort of thing from happening again. If the majority of the house were actually continuing to vote down this sort of thing then that would be better, but since it seems the majority is ready to pass a clean budget it should not be held up, and to go further than that how much legislation has been held up by boehner's or any other speaker's personal bias in the past? It is insane if a dem does it, and it is insane if a republican does it. Whatever the result of all of this shutdown becomes we have to make sure one of the effects is to eliminate the rules that prevent a vote by the house and senate based on a single person or minority hissy fit. Yes, that needs to include the filibuster.

The biggest fundamental flaw in the Congress is that they actually let liberals and other socialist types through the doors.
 
How does health insurance companies make their money?

1.) Sell policies to new customers.
2.) Sell more expensive policies to existing customers.
3.) Increase cost of existing premiums.
4.) Cover less health costs while charging the same premiums.
5.) Refuse to pay claims while ensuring no consequences.

That list I think consists of at least most of the ways that health insurance companies make their money. With the continuous growth paradigm of the free market, insurance companies will enact more suffering to their customers to provide a good balance sheet to investors regardless of financial expansion or contraction. Why? Because the drive of maximizing profits is the name of the game. Not just making a profit, but maximizing it. So if a health insurance company can not sign more customers, it has to use a combination of the other methods lined up above to make more money.

What happens?

Higher prices and more suffering for everyone.

I think that if health insurance is provided, it will allow more income to be spent in the economy on other things. This battles inflation for everybody. The same could be tailored but more so for education. Education is a stronger investment for obvious reasons. But if the cost of education were provided more money would be present to spend in the economy.

Not to mention we have the means to provide health insurance for everyone. It would be the humane thing to do to provide it.

Plus if everybody is insured, the cost of premiums go down.
Your list is nonsense.
Insurance sells a service/product.
That is how they make their profits.
Cost of care goes up, then so do premiums. That only makes sense.
They can not cover less than is agreed to. So stop with the absurdities.
And as to #5. When a person puts a claim in that they are not covered for, of course it gets denied.
They didn't purchase coverage for what ever it is they claimed.
Secondly, there isn't that many wrongful denials. But they are the most heard about.


Suffering is natural.
Healthcare is created and the product of another's efforts.
Folks who don't want insurance, don't have to purchase it, and nor should they be forced to.
If you want to hedge against your future suffering, then take out insurance.


And no "we" do not have the means to provide. Nor should we create the means when it means forcing someone against their will.
Nor does it have anything to do with governing the people. It isn't required, or needed.


Do you really not understand that forcing someone to provide for another is wrong?
Do you really not see that?
 
Your list is nonsense.
Insurance sells a service/product.
That is how they make their profits.
Cost of care goes up, then so do premiums. That only makes sense.
They can not cover less than is agreed to. So stop with the absurdities.
And as to #5. When a person puts a claim in that they are not covered for, of course it gets denied.
They didn't purchase coverage for what ever it is they claimed.
Secondly, there isn't that many wrongful denials. But they are the most heard about.


Suffering is natural.
Healthcare is created and the product of another's efforts.
Folks who don't want insurance, don't have to purchase it, and nor should they be forced to.
If you want to hedge against your future suffering, then take out insurance.


And no "we" do not have the means to provide. Nor should we create the means when it means forcing someone against their will.
Nor does it have anything to do with governing the people. It isn't required, or needed.


Do you really not understand that forcing someone to provide for another is wrong?
Do you really not see that?

How is my list nonsense because they sell a service or product? Why couldn't someone sell a service or product and do what I outlined above?

You are living in fantasy land. The pressure of the private sector is continual expansion. The purpose is to continue making profits. The list outlined before are the possible means by which insurance companies make their money. They do it all the time! If you make a major health claim your premiums will change. It isn't like premiums are stagnate and are rarely changed at all. That is everything but the truth.

And it is very possible for insurance companies to cover less. They just change the conditions of the premiums that they sell. Sure, if someone purchased the old premiums they should get the original care. But if someone purchased the "new" premiums with less coverage, then they would receive less coverage. Finally, health insurance companies have refused to pay claims to their customers to make more money. What are they going to do? Die? How are they going to fight back the process? Hire a lawyer that they can't afford?

I already know you are going to dismiss this film. But I suggest you watch the movie Sicko.

I don't get this argument. We already force people to buy insurance. It is called auto insurance. So what's the big deal? Because of some un supported philosophical stance we keep providing a better life for everyone.

We spend half a trillion dollars on the defense department per year. We have the money easy. Not to mention if you understand how the flow of money works and the banking sector, we create money out of nothing. We can easily provide the necessities of life to everyone, but we choose not to do it for various stupid reasons.

Why is doing something for the common good is wrong?
 
fundamental flaw that needs to be corrected in congress.

we now have the best government money can buy
that must end if we are to expect real change

only registered voters should be allowed to make campaign contributions (up to what ever limit is defined)
the prospective candidate receiving the donation must be someone who will appear on the donor's ballot (if they prevail in the primary)
all donations must be recorded on a specific federal web site for anyone to see, listing the amount, the donor, and the recipient
any funds not so listed within 10 days will be found to be bribes; the recipient can be punished by the courts for this wrongful acceptance of a bribe

notice that no PAC, union, lobby, or foreign nation can register as a voter and will no longer be able to monetarily influence elections
 
How is my list nonsense because they sell a service or product? Why couldn't someone sell a service or product and do what I outlined above?
Because what you outline is skewed as noted.
Insurance is a business. Do you not understand that?

You are living in fantasy land.
Clearly that is you.

The purpose is to continue making profits.
That is what a business does and is supposed to do.

The list outlined before are the possible means by which insurance companies make their money. They do it all the time! If you make a major health claim your premiums will change.
Your position is skewed.
They are a business, and are in the business of making profit.

If you don't like that, why don't you start a nonprofit insurance agency?
You know why you wont and others haven't?
It isn't sustainable.


But if someone purchased the "new" premiums with less coverage, then they would receive less coverage.
Wrong.
They receive the coverage they contracted for.
They don't get what they don't contract for.


Finally, health insurance companies have refused to pay claims to their customers to make more money.
And again, wrongful denials are not the norm.
Proper denials are and should be the norm.
You do not get to make claims for that which you are not covered.

What are they going to do? Die? How are they going to fight back the process? Hire a lawyer that they can't afford?
:doh What the heck are you talking about?
Wrongful denials are taken to court all the time. Lawyers do it on a contingency.

I already know you are going to dismiss this film. But I suggest you watch the movie Sicko.
I already have. It is propaganda. But it figures you would refer to it as skewed/liberal as your thoughts are on this topic.

I don't get this argument. We already force people to buy insurance. It is called auto insurance. So what's the big deal? Because of some un supported philosophical stance we keep providing a better life for everyone.
WTF?
Not even close to the same thing. Do you really not understand that?


No one is forced to buy insurance if they don't have a car.
No one is forced to buy insurance to drive on their own property.

When you choose to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways, do you even have a clue as to what insurance you are forced to buy and why?

It doesn't even come close to being the same. Nor can it be used to justify forcing health coverage.


We spend half a trillion dollars on the defense department per year. We have the money easy. Not to mention if you understand how the flow of money works and the banking sector, we create money out of nothing. We can easily provide the necessities of life to everyone, but we choose not to do it for various stupid reasons.
:doh
:naughty
Defense is a constitutional requirement.
Healthcare is not.
You can not use one to justify the other.

So again, no "we" do not have the means to provide. Nor should we create the means when it means forcing someone against their will.



Why is doing something for the common good is wrong?
Oh G_d!
:doh
What you believe is for the common good is subjective.

Forcing others to provide for another is not a common good, or for the common good. It is wrong.
There is more to say here but you just wouldn't get it.


It is alright for you to do if you choose to do so. Which is the way it should be. By choice.
 
Whatever you believe about the shutdown it does illustrate a flaw in congress on how legislation is brought before them. A single person or minority of people should not be able to keep something off the floor. Things should be presented and voted on in congress. If they are all against it then they are all against it, but it should be presented. Any house representative should be able to bring forth a budget or bill and have it voted on. If the majority of the house finds it acceptable they vote on it. This should apply to both parties so that bills or a budget which have enough bipartisan support to pass can pass. Letting the speaker decide which legislation he wants to vote on gives him way too much power. No matter which party it is they can restrict votes on all legislation based on the desires of the people who elect them which are just the members of that congressman's district. The US is litterally being held hostage at this pointy by the minority of people who happen to be the majority in boehner's district, and that is simply unacceptable for any representative to have that sort of power.

This is obviously a flaw that needs to be corrected ASAP to stop this sort of thing from happening again. If the majority of the house were actually continuing to vote down this sort of thing then that would be better, but since it seems the majority is ready to pass a clean budget it should not be held up, and to go further than that how much legislation has been held up by boehner's or any other speaker's personal bias in the past? It is insane if a dem does it, and it is insane if a republican does it. Whatever the result of all of this shutdown becomes we have to make sure one of the effects is to eliminate the rules that prevent a vote by the house and senate based on a single person or minority hissy fit. Yes, that needs to include the filibuster.

You're right. It should be a simple majority rules approach. Between the House and the Senate and the White House, we currently have 279 elected Republicans and 256 elected Democrats.

Every one of them should present bills to vote on every single day and all of the votes should be taken immediately without reading them as they did with Obamacare. This way, we could have 537 improvements to or country implemented every single day of the year every year. Majority rules and the country is healed!

You're a genius!
 
Thats debatable since the majority probably doesn't even know what it really is....especially conservatives.



When it's called the Obamacare they don't like it....but when it's called the Affordable Care Act they do seem to like it. So lets give it a chance, shall we? Because as time goes on, more people probably will like it. In fact they'll probably like it so much that Republicans will never be able to repeal it. hehehehe


BTW....I think the OP is talking about "up or down votes" and "filabusters"....not the ACA.



I thought she was talking about suspending rules to allow a tyranny of the majority.
 
Regardless, we have to get the practice of health insurance out of the private sector. Prices are only bound to go up at the expense of peoples' health.



The problem with the ACA is not that it is trying to do something. The problem is that it's dong the wrong thing.

We started out in 2008 during the campaign saying that the 30 million uninsured needed to be insured.

Now the goal is to have only 30 million uninsured.

The probability is that the number will be closer to double that amount.
 
Whatever you believe about the shutdown it does illustrate a flaw in congress on how legislation is brought before them.

So when the house sent bills it passed to the senate, that funding various parts of the government, the senate should have just voted for them, rather than allowing harry to simply not allow a vote on them? Yep.
 
I think you just proved my point that most don't even know what the ACA is or whats in it.


The ACA anticipated the need for more doctors.....


"...The National Health Service Corps’ Students to Service Loan Repayment Program was created by the ACA to help fourth-year medical students pay for their education in return for providing primary care services to underserved urban or rural areas. The loan awards were distributed by the National Health Service Corps and span 29 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico....<snip>.....

Recipients of these funds are required to serve three years of full-time service or six years of part-time service. The number of clinicians serving in the National Health Service Corps has nearly tripled during the past five years, according to HHS. About 10,000 primary care health care professionals are serving more than 10 million people at 14,000 health care sites....read..."

ACA starts repaying some medical student loans for primary care - amednews.com

Medical Students and Health System Reform




I have always had a question on where the subsidy monies are coming from.

If you plug in the data for yourself or your kid, you find a pretty large subsidy amount listed. There is also some confusion with regard to the levels of coverage, Between the Bronze, the silver and the Gold plans, there are Actuarial rates of 60%, 70% and 80%. I'm having trouble find the deductible levels, but i have heard that they have some.

The initial estimate was under a Trillion if half of medicaid was dissolved to pay the excess of cost over taxation.

If you think the current deficit is high, stay tuned.

What happens to all of the healthy young males who are not married and choose to not pay for maternity care? Jail?

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
 
The Government took the problem of non pool health insurance being too expensive for most to afford,
and created a monstrosity.
In their rush to expand the grasp of Government, they missed an opportunity to actually allow lower cost insurance to people.
The insurance providers who provide insurance to the Federal employees, like the contracts.
The Government could have told them, to get the employee contract, you need to provide the same pool rate to anyone
saying they want into the Government pool, and adjust their premiums accordingly.
Yes, this would have likely increased the Government pool rate, but I think the cost would have been lower than the ACA,
and would have kept the Government out of the insurance business.
 
You're right. It should be a simple majority rules approach. Between the House and the Senate and the White House, we currently have 279 elected Republicans and 256 elected Democrats.

Every one of them should present bills to vote on every single day and all of the votes should be taken immediately without reading them as they did with Obamacare. This way, we could have 537 improvements to or country implemented every single day of the year every year. Majority rules and the country is healed!

You're a genius!

And you have no legitimate argument so you make one up to argue against. If you are going to play with yourself get a room, if you are here to respond do it to what I say not what you wish I had said.
 
So when the house sent bills it passed to the senate, that funding various parts of the government, the senate should have just voted for them, rather than allowing harry to simply not allow a vote on them? Yep.

They voted on the bill and improved it. Sorry you do not like them doing their job and funding the government.
 
Whatever you believe about the shutdown it does illustrate a flaw in congress on how legislation is brought before them. A single person or minority of people should not be able to keep something off the floor. Things should be presented and voted on in congress. If they are all against it then they are all against it, but it should be presented. Any house representative should be able to bring forth a budget or bill and have it voted on. If the majority of the house finds it acceptable they vote on it. This should apply to both parties so that bills or a budget which have enough bipartisan support to pass can pass. Letting the speaker decide which legislation he wants to vote on gives him way too much power. No matter which party it is they can restrict votes on all legislation based on the desires of the people who elect them which are just the members of that congressman's district. The US is litterally being held hostage at this pointy by the minority of people who happen to be the majority in boehner's district, and that is simply unacceptable for any representative to have that sort of power.

This is obviously a flaw that needs to be corrected ASAP to stop this sort of thing from happening again. If the majority of the house were actually continuing to vote down this sort of thing then that would be better, but since it seems the majority is ready to pass a clean budget it should not be held up, and to go further than that how much legislation has been held up by boehner's or any other speaker's personal bias in the past? It is insane if a dem does it, and it is insane if a republican does it. Whatever the result of all of this shutdown becomes we have to make sure one of the effects is to eliminate the rules that prevent a vote by the house and senate based on a single person or minority hissy fit. Yes, that needs to include the filibuster.

Or Reid could let appropriation bills go forward and Obama could not threaten to veto them. Do Reid and Obama care more about a halfway completed healthcare plan which has shown it is obviously not ready for primetime than America?
 
And you have no legitimate argument so you make one up to argue against. If you are going to play with yourself get a room, if you are here to respond do it to what I say not what you wish I had said.



I did.

You said that the rules of Congress need to be changed to allow the Democrats to win. The Current shut down is the result of the Chief Executive failing, again, to lead and to organize the leaders of Congress to avoid this debacle. He has failed, again, and the current situation is the the result of his Chicago machine politics style of leadership.

The Democrats absolutely refuse to talk about Obamacare in a legislative way even though they have changed it outside of the Legislative process 17 times.

This shut down is a political device just as the trickery used to pass this train wreck was itself a political device. If the Senate has appointed conferees to reconcile the two budgets and that process had succeeded 6 MONTHS AGO this would not be happening.

If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, please suggest that. It would really makes no difference at this point. The Constitution is no longer a governing document in our banana republic.
 
Back
Top Bottom