• 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!

Today's mess

Ockham said:
There's a difference between a state instituting HC reform, and the Federal Government doing it.
Click to expand...

Right Insurance pools work BETTER when their are more members. Romneycare will be much more efficient on the national level.
 
iguanaman said:
It means that until it is overthrown, the bills passed and signed into law have the full force of the Federal Govt. and it's military to put them into effect. Go right ahead and break some federal laws and see what happens. Rob a bank or something.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can't break the law, but these nine dudes can come up with some tripe that the taxing and spending clause can be applied to forced commerce. All the while people like you don't have to defend a thing even if you have nothing to back you up besides five judges that should lose their jobs like the first guy that did what they did.

The worst part of it is that people like you don't care if people are forced into commerce or if people are made involuntary servants of others. You just don't care. WTF is that **** about? No honestly, what is that about?
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Right Insurance pools work BETTER when their are more members. Romneycare will be much more efficient on the national level.
Click to expand...

Agreed, about the insurance pools. Efficiency is not proven out in this case, since this program hasn't even been implemented yet - but I'm sure many are hoping that is the case.
 
iguanaman said:
Right Insurance pools work BETTER when their are more members. Romneycare will be much more efficient on the national level.
Click to expand...

Yeah, forcing people into the pool lowers the premiums of those already in the pool. Basically you're just using people for your own benefit once again. There can't be any sort of ethics to this, right? Then again, I don't understand the ethics of government welfare either, so that might be the problem.
 
CRUE CAB said:
I know qualified enough people that wont work, yet think everyone else needs to so they can have health insurance for their kids.
Click to expand...
Hell, I have a friend who pulls in around 100 thousand a year, who has a large litter of kids, and every one of them is on the state-funded children's insurance program. Something is seriously wrong when you can make a good salary, and get all your kids on the taxpayer-funded insurance program.
 
CRUE CAB said:
I dont remember hearing about too many poor dying from substandard care before.
Seems the emergency rooms were always filled with people with no insurance and no one was wheeled out to die.
Click to expand...

No, it's just the most expensive way in the world to provide health care for the uninsured. Try to focus.

So ACA solves that problem.

But bottomline, you'd be happy not providing any health care to those who can't afford it, right? It's OK, I won't tell anybody.
 
iguanaman said:
Romney fully supported the Mass. HC reform. It was not a matter of anyone having a veto overridden. The plan is quite popular in the State and over 98% of residents have health insurance. There is a mechanism for repealing a law already in place. Why is it that you think that method does not apply to the AHC act? Perhaps you want to overthrow the US Govt. and start over. I would be very careful about such talk if I were you.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would you think our government should be overthrown? We have one of the best types of government that ever existed, IMO. We are the model for many other countries, partly because our Founders knew the pitfalls of other types of governance and created a Constitution and Bill of Rights that we should live by, which have served us well for several hundred years, when followed. :peace:
 
ocean515 said:
I have a hard time gandering into crystal balls. They tend to be influenced by nefarious forces...
Click to expand...

I don't. The only issue is whether the Democrats will finally at long last play hardball with the freaks that constitute the GOP. They didn't when Bush was appointed president -- the Democrats should have impeached him as payback for the vanity impeachment of Clinton. But they were too nice.

Time to stop being nice. The Senate should hold rightwing America hostage and not pass any laws the GOP House wants unless taxes are raised on the rich and guns are banned.

See, that's who it works if you want to play hardball.
 
CRUE CAB said:
I know qualified enough people that wont work, yet think everyone else needs to so they can have health insurance for their kids.
Click to expand...

Oh dear God, the Lazy America meme. Yeah, only you work hard, nobody else. And there are no poor kids in America. It's all a libral media conspiracy.

Why don't tea partiers just grow up.
 
head of joaquin said:
I don't. The only issue is whether the Democrats will finally at long last play hardball with the freaks that constitute the GOP. They didn't when Bush was appointed president -- the Democrats should have impeached him as payback for the vanity impeachment of Clinton. But they were too nice.

Time to stop being nice. The Senate should hold rightwing America hostage and not pass any laws the GOP House wants unless taxes are raised on the rich and guns are banned.

See, that's who it works if you want to play hardball.
Click to expand...
posting this because it is so true
time to play hard ball
tax the rich and feed the poor
 
Glowpun said:
Who are the people who are against Obamacare care and why?

What is the problem with some people who don't want others to have health insurance? Some of the things that are in obamacare the republicans were in favour of. But no more, why?
Click to expand...

I am strongly against the Obamacare, because, to the best of my understanding, it is a destructive legislation designed by people who do not understand the nature of problems our health care system is facing, and that is virtually guaranteed to make things worse for most everyone, in the long run.

The current (as of yesterday) situation is nothing to brag about: We do not live up to 1/5th of out potential, in the area of the health care markets.

But it is not like we have a social catastrophe at our hands. Between the Medicaid and mandatory emergency room services, the very disadvantaged ARE being taken care of.

The real, creeping, debilitating (on all levels) problem is not the "shortage of coverage" - it is the mounting cost of health care per se.

The inability or reluctance of some lower-middle class (mostly young and healthy) people to acquire health insurance is just one (not the most serious) consequence of this pathological inflation. I say "pathological" because it is not a natural market phenomenon of any sort. It is a direct result of the health care market being cornered ten times over, by the joint forces of the government and the "insurance" companies.

Outside of the tiny pay-out-of-your-pocket niches, like Lasik or selective surgery (where prices fall and quality improves, as they should, naturally), there's a huge disconnect between the customer (patient) and the service provider (doctor, nurse, medicine manufacturer).

The customer does not pay - a parasitic intermediary with its own agenda does - either a government bureaucracy, or an "insurance" company.

"Insurance", really? Broken limbs or rare infection - sure, why not take out a catastrophic insurance against something like that. But seasonal colds, routine checkups, getting older, for crying out loud - ? How can there be an "insurance" (regardless of the size of the "pool") against events that are 100% certain to occur? Clearly, we are talking about a bizarre, convoluted way of (over)paying for medical services, without any added value.

And what does the Obamacare do? It cements this pathology, advancing the unholy duumvirate of government and its faux-insurance crony capitalist clients, even to the point of actively forcing people to buy their nonsensical "product", whether they want it or not.

I can imagine a single-payer, socialist solution that improves on the status quo (although it will bring its own problems along). What I cannot imagine is how any intelligent, well-meaning person who actually bothers to take a close look can consider this legislation as anything but an abomination. An honest socialist, an honest libertarian, and an honest conservative should be unanimous on this one. Seriously.


( The dozens of perfectly idiotic little gems scattered throughout the obese body of the ACA - like the tax targeting... medical devices, of all things - they almost provide a comic relief, with such background...My guess, the sages in charge of this projects have hearing problems: It's "vice tax", not "de-vice").
 
head of joaquin said:
Oh dear God, the Lazy America meme. Yeah, only you work hard, nobody else. And there are no poor kids in America. It's all a libral media conspiracy.

Why don't tea partiers just grow up.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is a lie. I never said any of that.
 
Henrin said:
Yeah, forcing people into the pool lowers the premiums of those already in the pool. Basically you're just using people for your own benefit once again. There can't be any sort of ethics to this, right? Then again, I don't understand the ethics of government welfare either, so that might be the problem.
Click to expand...

In my experience, the "ethics" of a Conservative does not include caring about anyone but themselves. The concept of "need" is what you are missing.
You might also take a look around you sometimes and realize that it's not just you that live here. That would be a start at least.
 
TheNextEra said:
The other points you made are valid, but this one here I think is a little off. That's the purpose of insurance and what happens when you have private insurance. Those that are healthy pay into it and use it when they are sick. If you are healthy, not sick, and paying, you are paying for someone elses insurance and even paying the subsidies for those who can't.
Click to expand...
The difference is that one was totally voluntary and you paid for what you got and it acted as insurance, the other is not and does not.
 
justabubba said:
no, no, NO

that is compassionate conservatism
**** the least among us
Click to expand...
No, That is reality and the way it should be.
If you want to provide care for another, you can choose to do so.
But to force others to do so is wrong.
 
iguanaman said:
In my experience, the "ethics" of a Conservative does not include caring about anyone but themselves.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ignoring that conservatives give to the needy just as much if not more so than others.

The concept of "need" is what you are missing.
Click to expand...

What someone needs doesn't warrant forcing people into commerce nor does it warrant forced charity or involuntary servitude.

You might also take a look around you sometimes and realize that it's not just you that live here. That would be a start at least.
Click to expand...

A start at what? Last year I gave 11% of my salary to the needy. I'm not here to compete against you in some stupid 'I care more brawl', but if I say so myself I give plenty. Most people wouldn't know this about me based on how I post or my political views perhaps, but I'm actually a pretty caring guy IRL. The difference between you and me is that I don't confuse my desire to help the needy with the desires of others. Someone might very well not want to give and that is their choice to make.
 
Excon said:
The difference is that one was totally voluntary and you paid for what you got and it acted as insurance, the other is not and does not.
Click to expand...

Pssst: public health requires everybody to get health care. See the difference?

Anyway, what's voluntary about not being able to afford health care insurance, the status of 50M Americans under the GOP's dysfunctional market model?
 
head of joaquin said:
Pssst: public health requires everybody to get health care. See the difference?
Click to expand...
Psst!
Forcing something is not right.


head of joaquin said:
Anyway, what's voluntary about not being able to afford health care insurance, the status of 50M Americans under the GOP's dysfunctional market model?
Click to expand...
Wtf?
What is voluntary about not being to afford a new BMW.
Your position is absurd.
Healthcare is a product of another's effort.
You can't afford it, you don't get it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom