- #1
- 753
- 2
Main Question or Discussion Point
So if the Republican party regain control of the house and senate, are they able to reverse the bill?
I know I linked to this in another thread, but it fit here too. http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo".No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
It's immoral because you do not have the right to medical care.
Those who lack the courage will always find a philosophy to justify it.
What do you mean by that? Who would attack who?
The proposed solution risks bankrupting the nation is the problem however.The truth is, we need medical coverage for those that don't get it through their employer or can't afford it. In the situation we are in with high unemployment, the number of Americans suddenly left without insurance has skyrocketed. This isn't acceptable in a successful western society.
Is the proposed solution perfect? No. Do changes need to be made for it to become a reality? Yes. Do we need it? Absolutely.
Do you have a reference for an estimate of the risk? The CBO has released estimates projecting decreases in the deficit over the next 10 years.The proposed solution risks bankrupting the nation is the problem however.
That's right.It's immoral because you do not have the right to medical care.
I'm convinced the philosophy you must be referring to is the philosophy of liberalism. What we've done over the last century is spend, spend, spend and take more and more liberties away. Now where are we?Sure. I only wish once this settled down and bankruptcy turns out not to happen, all those voices will find something more useful to do with their life than noise. Albert Camus once said Those who lack the courage will always find a philosophy to justify it.
The CBO is wrong. They have to use various assumptions in making their calculations. You could also look at the history of most all the government health entitlements. They never come out costing what they are projected to. The bill supposedly pays for itself by cutting Medicare, but it is also supposed to expand Medicare. Now anyone knows you can't expand Medicare with the same bill that is funded with cuts to Medicare.Do you have a reference for an estimate of the risk? The CBO has released estimates projecting decreases in the deficit over the next 10 years.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11378&type=1http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11378&type=1 [Broken]
Can't agree more. My state is rural/forested with primarily seasonal and part-time jobs that don't offer any health-insurance, and income levels that don't allow workers to afford them. Without some fundamental reforms, more people would be left behind, denied preventative health care and denied treatment until their conditions got serious enough to to require ER visits, which we ALL pay for.The truth is, we need medical coverage for those that don't get it through their employer or can't afford it. In the situation we are in with high unemployment, the number of Americans suddenly left without insurance has skyrocketed. This isn't acceptable in a successful western society.
Is the proposed solution perfect? No. Do changes need to be made for it to become a reality? Yes. Do we need it? Absolutely.
You're confusing Medicare and Medicaid. They're different programs.The bill supposedly pays for itself by cutting Medicare, but it is also supposed to expand Medicare. Now anyone knows you can't expand Medicare with the same bill that is funded with cuts to Medicare.
Nope, I am aware they are different. The bill claims it will cut Medicare spending to pay for health reform and expand Medicare's future solvency. If you solely cut back $500 billion in Medicare expenditures that could make it more solvent, but if you then go and spend that same $500 billion for health reform, you cannot claim you made Medicare more solvent.You're confusing Medicare and Medicaid. They're different programs.
It isn't fearmongering. Fearmongering is when you make over-exaggerated claims of what the bad results will be if people do or do not do something.http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx
Now that the fear mongering is over mostly,
Of course it will. And then when the nation is met with the staggering reality of just how much it costs, and thus has a crazy level of debt and deficit, and has to raise taxes, and then eventually start cutting benefits because there just isn't enough money, people will be screaming.I predict popular support for this bill will swing substantially in favor of it.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with taxing soda and junk food. If you can come up with a good argument on why we shouldn't tax those things... well, I want to see it.I could imagine a tax on fast-food, a tax on soda, a tax on any kind of junk food, etc...regulations on this and that that we haven't thought of yet.
Too late, people (AKA conservatives) were doing that a year ago.Of course it will. And then when the nation is met with the staggering reality of just how much it costs, and thus has a crazy level of debt and deficit, and has to raise taxes, and then eventually start cutting benefits because there just isn't enough money, people will be screaming.
So then you are okay with the government just being able to come and try to dictate and control your lifestyle?? Why not just ban them altogether then?I see absolutely nothing wrong with taxing soda and junk food. If you can come up with a good argument on why we shouldn't tax those things... well, I want to see it.