logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Election results are in!, What do they mean?
Hobbes
post Nov 3 2010, 04:30 PM
Post #1


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,328
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



The mid-term elections are over, and they finished about like most polls predicted they would. The Republicans made very large gains in the House, adding 60 (or more) seats. They picked up ground in the Senate, but not enough to gain control, with 46 seats currently and three still undecided. They also made large gains in governorships. Some of the Tea Party candidates won major races (Paul, Rubio); some lost convincingly (O'Donnell). Both these results, and early exit poll results indicate a dissatisfaction with the direction we were headed. Republicans swept into office with a renewed smaller government mantra, but they only control 1/3 of the government. Boehner, the likely new Speaker of the House, has a propensity for working across the aisle--but now has a supposed mandate behind him. Given all this, the following questions emerge:

1. What do these results mean? Was this vote a repudiation of the policies Obama has enacted? If so, what do you think he will do about it? If not, what do you think was the rationale for the change?

2. What do you think will likely happen in government the next 2 years? Will the Republicans in the House become active in trying to form policy through new legislation? Or will they simply work against whatever Obama/the Senate propose? Will there be any significant slowdown in government spending?

3. Were the House to propose any significant changes in Obama's Health Care, would the Senate go along with them or would they strongly oppose it? If any such bill were to come out of Congress, would Obama veto it?

4. Will Obama try to work with the Senate to continue his agenda, work with the Republicans to move forward on areas they can, or wait and see what comes out of Congress? Will he adopt a new policy of triangulation, like Clinton did? Or will he stick with his initial policies/philosophy?

5. Do these results validate the Tea Party as a legitimate entity politically? Will it grow, or wither on the vine?

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Nov 3 2010, 07:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 77)
Ted
post Nov 9 2010, 03:29 AM
Post #61


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 8 2010, 09:28 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 8 2010, 08:18 PM) *
QUOTE
PE
And you're falling for some of the wealthiest companies and people on earth screaming poverty! The costs are going up for everybody, Ted, even the poorest Americans. Who can better afford to cover them, individuals or the companies with whom they hold policies? Should they be able to renege on their commitments?


Did you ever work for a “company”. You speak of them as if they are evil individuals. Did you read above from the liberal Brooking Institute. Their profits are tiny compared to healthcare spending PE and without any profit they do not exist. That’s right PE they are GONE. Think of asking a person to work and then saying I will not pay you. Do you get the point here?
QUOTE
There is a detachment from what ordinary Americans experience in their struggle to stay solvent


I agree and this election shows us how people feel about their government spending like drunks and hiring like crazy while companies big and small lay off workers.

This is why the Democrats lost OVER SIX HUNDRED Seats at the state level and over 60 in the US House.

That is insulting, Ted. Of course I have worked for companies. You pulled that statement totally out of context. When you have something of value to say I might respond to you further. But your last statement is beneath you in its simplistic ignorance.

Clearly I meant no disrespect or insult.

You said you have worked for companies yet you believe that any “company” can or should be willing to essentially work at a loss or for free as a minimum and still employ people and do the job? How?

I don’t get it. Explain it to me PE - please

This post has been edited by Ted: Nov 9 2010, 03:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Nov 9 2010, 08:43 AM
Post #62


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,194
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 8 2010, 10:29 PM) *
You said you have worked for companies yet you believe that any "company" can or should be willing to essentially work at a loss or for free as a minimum and still employ people and do the job? How?

I don't get it. Explain it to me PE - please

Ted, as a self described "Elite Senior Contributor," the most notable thing about your posts is how prolific they are, not how easy it is to click on a back arrow and get to the original article that you are citing, unless of course you are quoting the entire previous post.

I have known Paladin Elspeth for a long time. I am puzzled by your reference to her belief:
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 8 2010, 10:29 PM) *
that any "company" can or should be willing to essentially work at a loss or for free as a minimum and still employ people and do the job?

I know from personal experience that one of her employers hired her as a proofreader in the days before word processors were commonly available. I am certain that she is able, from long personal experience, to distinguish between working for an individual, a private employer, a large corporation, etc. and I cannot imagine her using quotation marks to identify a noun as though it were a misnomer.

For the record, Paladin Elspeth and I both retired on disability only when we became unemployable. That occurred long before the 2010 election cycle, and should have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I was not able to locate the post that you were referring to, but the questions for this thread were:

1. What do these results mean? Was this vote a repudiation of the policies Obama has enacted? If so, what do you think he will do about it? If not, what do you think was the rationale for the change?

2. What do you think will likely happen in government the next 2 years? Will the Republicans in the House become active in trying to form policy through new legislation? Or will they simply work against whatever Obama/the Senate propose? Will there be any significant slowdown in government spending?

3. Were the House to propose any significant changes in Obama's Health Care, would the Senate go along with them or would they strongly oppose it? If any such bill were to come out of Congress, would Obama veto it?

4. Will Obama try to work with the Senate to continue his agenda, work with the Republicans to move forward on areas they can, or wait and see what comes out of Congress? Will he adopt a new policy of triangulation, like Clinton did? Or will he stick with his initial policies/philosophy?

5. Do these results validate the Tea Party as a legitimate entity politically? Will it grow, or wither on the vine?

Why should we have to either define or defend our careers to debate in this thread?

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Nov 9 2010, 08:58 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 9 2010, 01:54 PM
Post #63


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Curmudgeon
I know from personal experience that one of her employers hired her as a proofreader in the days before word processors were commonly available. I am certain that she is able, from long personal experience, to distinguish between working for an individual, a private employer, a large corporation, etc. and I cannot imagine her using quotation marks to identify a noun as though it were a misnomer.


I asked the question sir because many people work for the Federal or State government, or teach and never work for a “corporation” like the ones we are discussing.

I asked this because it seems logical that if she had she might be familiar with company finances and the need to make profit in order for a company to survive. Even “non-profit” companies have to break even.

It seems clear that Health Insurance companies are not the problem in the Healthcare debate regardless of the silly vilification they have endured (almost unchallenged by the press) at the hands of Obama and his minions. The Brookings study and the public knowledge of their meager profits point this out.

So that is why I asked PE about her employment history. No insult was intended in any way. I do not always agree with PE but I respect her (and your) opinion. I just try to make my point….

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 9 2010, 05:21 PM
Post #64


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 9 2010, 08:54 AM) *
QUOTE
Curmudgeon
I know from personal experience that one of her employers hired her as a proofreader in the days before word processors were commonly available. I am certain that she is able, from long personal experience, to distinguish between working for an individual, a private employer, a large corporation, etc. and I cannot imagine her using quotation marks to identify a noun as though it were a misnomer.


I asked the question sir because many people work for the Federal or State government, or teach and never work for a “corporation” like the ones we are discussing.

I asked this because it seems logical that if she had she might be familiar with company finances and the need to make profit in order for a company to survive. Even “non-profit” companies have to break even.

It seems clear that Health Insurance companies are not the problem in the Healthcare debate regardless of the silly vilification they have endured (almost unchallenged by the press) at the hands of Obama and his minions. The Brookings study and the public knowledge of their meager profits point this out.

So that is why I asked PE about her employment history. No insult was intended in any way. I do not always agree with PE but I respect her (and your) opinion. I just try to make my point….


Ted, You may search my posts and I know that you will never find that I have suggested that companies or corporations work at a loss or just to break even. (I also know the difference between a "non-profit" and a "not-for-profit" corporation.) I do not hate corporations or companies, but I do get disgusted when some of them move their operations overseas just because the labor is cheaper there while the folks at the top make over three hundred times what their rank and file employees do. I do not think that unions should run companies; nor do I think that management should be deaf to the needs of its workers when it comes to making a living wage and working under safer conditions. A dynamic balance between labor and management is ideal but it is seldom achieved.

That same balance should be present in the Congress for the health of the country.

Now to show you some of the "silly vilification" that the healthcare insurance companies have "endured" that prompted at least Democrats (and apparently some Republicans) to believe that reform was necessary:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/bu...ss/fi-rescind17
QUOTE
An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.

"No one can defend, and I certainly cannot defend, the practice of canceling coverage after the fact," said Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.), a member of the committee. "There is no acceptable minimum to denying coverage after the fact."

These are not isolated instances. It has been happening in other companies. Do you just drop a person because he or she gets sick or needs more medicines to stay alive? Then why be an insurance provider in the first place, and why should people go to the trouble of paying insurance premiums to a company that will abandon them for the sole reason of keeping a fat bottom line?

I am not saying that corporations such as these are evil, but what they are doing is clearly wrong. And if conscience is optional in an industry where the health of subscribers is supposed to be Priority One, it is just as mercenary as a used car dealership where you have to check CarFax to make sure you're not getting screwed over by buying that cute little Ford Escort with the clean interior.

When peoples' lives are involved, a health insurance company policy shouldn't have to read, Caveat Emptor.

The Democratic Party seems to hear more complaints than the Republican Party when it comes to injustices. That may not be true, but one big reason that I am a Democrat is that my party listens and tries to work out solutions for Americans. Ideologically speaking, Democrats mostly believe that government should serve the people ("promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"), not just levy taxes for defense and say "you're on your own" regarding just about anything else.

Folks on both sides of the aisle are guilty when it comes to reckless spending. But have a look at what they are spending the money on. Is it intended to actually improve the health and quality of life for the nation's people? It should be. Is it effective? Not always, and this is where we need changes. I hope that the new Congress actually sees Republicans and Democrats actually talking to each other and not being so preoccupied with whether they will be re-elected if they choose to cooperate with reasonable people on "the other side".

I am a retired nurse and a breast cancer survivor, as well as a diabetic. I nearly died back in 2005 from a systemic bacterial infection, one that was not caused by anything I did, but from an organism found in my PICC line (the i.v. line used to give me chemotherapy). I was fortunate that my health care insurance company did not drop me because I had gotten too sick. But there are people who have not been as fortunate who have died all for the sake of profits for the shareholders. No, companies shouldn't go without profits. But when it comes to people dying unnecessarily because someone wants even higher profits, those profits are obscene.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 9 2010, 05:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 9 2010, 05:44 PM
Post #65


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



That's one thing that just galls me. Most people (And exit polls show this) don't understand what health insurance reform has meant.

Insurance, by the very word, has a meaning. It's supposed to kick in when you need it.

Health insurance companies' policy of rescission essentially made them into a casino where they instantly kick out anyone who makes a big win, without making the payoff. Or the old casino joke about the owner who, when asked if you needed to be 21 to play, said, "You need to be 21 to win." (i.e., they'll only check your ID if they have to pay out.)

One of the most important things about health insurance reform is ending this practice of rescission -- the practice of finding any pretext whatsoever to retroactively cancel an insurance policy when that policy becomes expensive for the insurance company. Now a policy can only be rescinded if the policyholder can be shown to have committed deliberate fraud in applying for the insurance.

And for diabetics like Paladin Elspeth and myself, it also ensures that we can't be refused insurance because of "pre-existing conditions." And considering what some insurance companies called a "pre-existing condition", like for example being a victim of spousal battery, this is also a big win against an insurance industry which was, again, very much like a crooked gambling hall that stacked the decks, loaded the dice and magnetized the roulette wheels.

Voters' ignorance of what health insurance reform actually meant, what it actually did, was directly due to the torrent of misinformation by right-wing pols and pundits that was not countered effectively by the Obama administration, Democratic legislators, or their supporters in the media. Truth was a casualty and that led to voters basing their votes on false data.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 9 2010, 06:40 PM
Post #66


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Now to show you some of the "silly vilification" that the healthcare insurance companies have "endured" that prompted at least Democrats (and apparently some Republicans) to believe that reform was necessary:


The bad business practices of some companies does not indicate the industry is evil. Do you realize that the ability to do what you quote above was given to the companies by the STATES that control them and regulate them. They could have prohibited the practice at any time. And don’t get me wrong I am no fan of insurance companies but the Obama portrayal of the Industry, supported by many in the Media like Olbermann was a flat out lie. And not even a good lie since any “journalist” or anyone with a computer could easily look up the profits of this sector. Yet I only heard the truth once and that was on FOX. Certainly it never crossed the lips of the likes of Maddow.

The reality is they are not the problem, and they don’t make “huge” profits and never have as pointed out above.
QUOTE
Folks on both sides of the aisle are guilty when it comes to reckless spending. But have a look at what they are spending the money on. Is it intended to actually improve the health and quality of life for the nation's people? It should be. Is it effective? Not always, and this is where we need changes. I hope that the new Congress actually sees Republicans and Democrats actually talking to each other and not being so preoccupied with whether they will be re-elected if they choose to cooperate with reasonable people on "the other side".


I agree and I am and always have been in favor of sensible healthcare reform. But lets do it right. Let’s be honest about the cost and who will be paying it. If you have to lie about the real costs then something is wrong.

Nancy says she will defend her Bill and not allow changes. A sure recipe for gridlock. We need to get passed it and get something we can afford done for Americans. And Republicans are not off the hook. They “won” in the same way Democrats “won” in ’08. They will either satisfy the electorate or face the same fate as Democrats have this month…
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 9 2010, 06:45 PM
Post #67


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted)
The bad business practices of some companies does not indicate the industry is evil.

Hello? Did you read all that I wrote in the post? Like this:
QUOTE(me)
I am not saying that corporations such as these are evil, but what they are doing is clearly wrong.

The industry needed reform and still needs more reform. You are clearly reading into what I and other people say. If the states did their jobs then yes, it might have been unnecessary for any federal intervention. So what have the states done?

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 9 2010, 06:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 9 2010, 06:55 PM
Post #68


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 9 2010, 01:45 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted)
The bad business practices of some companies does not indicate the industry is evil.

Hello? Did you read all that I wrote in the post? Like this:
QUOTE(me)
I am not saying that corporations such as these are evil, but what they are doing is clearly wrong.

The industry needed reform and still needs more reform. You are clearly reading into what I and other people say. If the states did their jobs then yes, it might have been unnecessary for any federal intervention. So what have the states done?

Yes. Did you read what I wrote. The Healthcare Insurance Industry is one of the most Regulated industries in the country. Every practice and policy is under the control of the States they reside in. So if companies are doing theses things than the states either allow it or are not enforcing their own regulations.

I live in MA and even before “universal coverage” (a financial disaster btw) companies were prohibited from not covering per-existing conditions for more than 6 months.

So yes the industry “need reform” at every level and its coming and I agree with the changes. But lets not imaging that it will be “cheap” and will not raise the cost of healthcare for all of us because it certainly will…..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 9 2010, 07:08 PM
Post #69


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 9 2010, 01:55 PM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 9 2010, 01:45 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted)
The bad business practices of some companies does not indicate the industry is evil.

Hello? Did you read all that I wrote in the post? Like this:
QUOTE(me)
I am not saying that corporations such as these are evil, but what they are doing is clearly wrong.

The industry needed reform and still needs more reform. You are clearly reading into what I and other people say. If the states did their jobs then yes, it might have been unnecessary for any federal intervention. So what have the states done?

Yes. Did you read what I wrote. The Healthcare Insurance Industry is one of the most Regulated industries in the country. Every practice and policy is under the control of the States they reside in. So if companies are doing theses things than the states either allow it or are not enforcing their own regulations.

I live in MA and even before “universal coverage” (a financial disaster btw) companies were prohibited from not covering per-existing conditions for more than 6 months.

So yes the industry “need reform” at every level and its coming and I agree with the changes. But lets not imaging that it will be “cheap” and will not raise the cost of healthcare for all of us because it certainly will…..

Whatever. I must confess that your tirade on Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann caused my eyes to glaze over.

Regardless of whether the changes will not be cheap, they need to happen. And the last time I checked, conservatives are basically against change. They are majorly into the status quo, i.e. the way things are. So I don't vote for conservatives when I want change. We'll just see what the new Tea Party Congresspeople do, because chances are we are going to just get more of the same from the Republicans, and the Democrats need to stick to their principles and be better at publicizing the good things they have done for our country.

I'm done debating with you on this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 9 2010, 07:18 PM
Post #70


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 9 2010, 02:08 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 9 2010, 01:55 PM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 9 2010, 01:45 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted)
The bad business practices of some companies does not indicate the industry is evil.

Hello? Did you read all that I wrote in the post? Like this:
QUOTE(me)
I am not saying that corporations such as these are evil, but what they are doing is clearly wrong.

The industry needed reform and still needs more reform. You are clearly reading into what I and other people say. If the states did their jobs then yes, it might have been unnecessary for any federal intervention. So what have the states done?

Yes. Did you read what I wrote. The Healthcare Insurance Industry is one of the most Regulated industries in the country. Every practice and policy is under the control of the States they reside in. So if companies are doing theses things than the states either allow it or are not enforcing their own regulations.

I live in MA and even before “universal coverage” (a financial disaster btw) companies were prohibited from not covering per-existing conditions for more than 6 months.

So yes the industry “need reform” at every level and its coming and I agree with the changes. But lets not imaging that it will be “cheap” and will not raise the cost of healthcare for all of us because it certainly will…..

Whatever. I must confess that your tirade on Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann caused my eyes to glaze over.

Regardless of whether the changes will not be cheap, they need to happen. And the last time I checked, conservatives are basically against change. They are majorly into the status quo, i.e. the way things are. So I don't vote for conservatives when I want change. We'll just see what the new Tea Party Congresspeople do, because chances are we are going to just get more of the same from the Republicans, and the Democrats need to stick to their principles and be better at publicizing the good things they have done for our country.

I'm done debating with you on this.

Then you haven’t checked. Republicans have a healthcare plan - and did when the Dems were jamming through theirs.

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pheeler
post Nov 9 2010, 09:24 PM
Post #71


*******
Professional Chem Nerd

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 557
Member No.: 925
Joined: July-25-03

From: Fort Collins, CO
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 9 2010, 12:18 PM) *
Then you haven’t checked. Republicans have a healthcare plan - and did when the Dems were jamming through theirs.

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare


QUOTE
Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

Awesome, they kick it right off with an assault on state's rights. When you allow insurance companies to play the rules of whatever state they want, you effectively destroy any state regulation but that of the state with the least regulation.

QUOTE
Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

This isn't part of the current health care bill? I'm surprised because it seems like a reasonable suggestion. High-risk pools are certainly part of the current changes, I don't see why Democrats would oppose normal risk pools.

QUOTE
Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.

Completely moot when insurance companies are going to set up shop in the state with the best rules for them.

QUOTE
Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

AKA tort reform. Are Democrats generally against tort reform? They didn't include it in the health bill because it's going to take a lot more work than everything else, and in the meantime they wanted to make the urgent changes (covering pre-existing conditions, doing away with lifetime maximums etc.)

Those are the major points. I don't see much coherent argument that the broad strokes of Obamacare should be repealed, yet that's what seems to echo in conservative circles. How about "Improve Obamacare!" instead of "Repeal Obamacare!"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 9 2010, 09:41 PM
Post #72


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
pheeler
Awesome, they kick it right off with an assault on state's rights. When you allow insurance companies to play the rules of whatever state they want, you effectively destroy any state regulation but that of the state with the least regulation.


Well you don’t have to do that. You could allow for state rules but open up the competition. Its been documented that regulated industries are not known for the lowest prices. They tend to suck up to the Regulators – since they are their real “customer”.

And if you read above perhaps some Federal mandates are in order……

QUOTE
QUOTE
Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
This isn't part of the current health care bill? I'm surprised because it seems like a reasonable suggestion. High-risk pools are certainly part of the current changes, I don't see why Democrats would oppose normal risk pools.


Me either but one of their constituencies apparently does……….The answer may be that they wanted to be the “pool” with the public option…
QUOTE
AKA tort reform. Are Democrats generally against tort reform? They didn't include it in the health bill because it's going to take a lot more work than everything else, and in the meantime they wanted to make the urgent changes (covering pre-existing conditions, doing away with lifetime maximums etc.)


They are because one major constituency that clearly hates tort reform are Lawyers – and they got their way. The Dem Bill promises to “study” the issue – read as we look at it until you forget about it ……

QUOTE
Those are the major points. I don't see much coherent argument that the broad strokes of Obamacare should be repealed, yet that's what seems to echo in conservative circles. How about "Improve Obamacare!" instead of "Repeal Obamacare!"


The cost is a big issue. I think Republicans would like to do the above as long as the cost is not a long term budget buster and as long as the government is not running healthcare.

Some Democrat ideas I also like are the medical effectiveness Panels. They are not “death panels” and if done right they could reign in needless medical procedures (many of them surgical) that cost the healthcare system big $ and often kill people while doing little good for most.

Drugs fall into the same category – but that industry seems to own both parties…..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Nov 9 2010, 09:45 PM
Post #73


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(pheeler @ Nov 9 2010, 03:24 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 9 2010, 12:18 PM) *
Then you haven’t checked. Republicans have a healthcare plan - and did when the Dems were jamming through theirs.

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare


QUOTE
Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

Awesome, they kick it right off with an assault on state's rights. When you allow insurance companies to play the rules of whatever state they want, you effectively destroy any state regulation but that of the state with the least regulation.

QUOTE
Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

This isn't part of the current health care bill? I'm surprised because it seems like a reasonable suggestion. High-risk pools are certainly part of the current changes, I don't see why Democrats would oppose normal risk pools.

QUOTE
Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.

Completely moot when insurance companies are going to set up shop in the state with the best rules for them.

QUOTE
Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

AKA tort reform. Are Democrats generally against tort reform? They didn't include it in the health bill because it's going to take a lot more work than everything else, and in the meantime they wanted to make the urgent changes (covering pre-existing conditions, doing away with lifetime maximums etc.)

Those are the major points. I don't see much coherent argument that the broad strokes of Obamacare should be repealed, yet that's what seems to echo in conservative circles. How about "Improve Obamacare!" instead of "Repeal Obamacare!"

I’m simply amazed that Ted, who no longer admits he’s a Republican, seems to love everything Republican and hate everything Democratic. On occasion he even has to be reminded that he's no longer a Republican

Is it possible insurance regulation will eventually end up being regulated by the feds under the interstate commerce clause if Republicans ever prevail on this buying across state lines agrument?

This post has been edited by BoF: Nov 9 2010, 09:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 9 2010, 09:52 PM
Post #74


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(BoF @ Nov 9 2010, 04:45 PM) *
QUOTE(pheeler @ Nov 9 2010, 03:24 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 9 2010, 12:18 PM) *
Then you haven’t checked. Republicans have a healthcare plan - and did when the Dems were jamming through theirs.

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare


QUOTE
Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

Awesome, they kick it right off with an assault on state's rights. When you allow insurance companies to play the rules of whatever state they want, you effectively destroy any state regulation but that of the state with the least regulation.

QUOTE
Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

This isn't part of the current health care bill? I'm surprised because it seems like a reasonable suggestion. High-risk pools are certainly part of the current changes, I don't see why Democrats would oppose normal risk pools.

QUOTE
Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.

Completely moot when insurance companies are going to set up shop in the state with the best rules for them.

QUOTE
Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

AKA tort reform. Are Democrats generally against tort reform? They didn't include it in the health bill because it's going to take a lot more work than everything else, and in the meantime they wanted to make the urgent changes (covering pre-existing conditions, doing away with lifetime maximums etc.)

Those are the major points. I don't see much coherent argument that the broad strokes of Obamacare should be repealed, yet that's what seems to echo in conservative circles. How about "Improve Obamacare!" instead of "Repeal Obamacare!"

I’m simply amazed that Ted, who no longer admits he’s a Republican, seems to love everything Republican and hate everything Democratic.

Is it possible to subject insurance regulation to the feds under the interstate commerce clause if Republicans ever prevail on this point?

I am still a conservative BoF so who do you think I am closer to Republicans or Dems? whistling.gif

QUOTE
Is it possible to subject insurance regulation to the feds under the interstate commerce clause if Republicans ever prevail on this point?


Well I think the healthcare Bill does this now. Doesn’t it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Nov 9 2010, 09:58 PM
Post #75


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 9 2010, 03:52 PM) *
I am still a conservative BoF so who do you think I am closer to Republicans or Dems?

Honestly Ted I really don't give a rat's rear.

It is simply amazing that you and others spell out Republican but have to abbreviate Democrats to Dems.

This post has been edited by BoF: Nov 9 2010, 10:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 9 2010, 10:01 PM
Post #76


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(BoF @ Nov 9 2010, 04:58 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 9 2010, 03:52 PM) *
I am still a conservative BoF so who do you think I am closer to Republicans or Dems?

Honestly Ted I really don't give a rat's rear.

It is simply amazing that you and others spell out Republican but have to abbreviate Democrats to Dems.

I feel the same about your comment BoF.

And I often use Repubs for …..well you know.

Want to stick to the topic - for a change......... whistling.gif

This post has been edited by Ted: Nov 9 2010, 10:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Nov 9 2010, 10:20 PM
Post #77


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 9 2010, 04:01 PM) *
Want to stick to the topic - for a change......... whistling.gif

QUOTE(BoF @ Nov 9 2010, 03:45 PM) *
Is it possible insurance regulation will eventually end up being regulated by the feds under the interstate commerce clause if Republicans ever prevail on this buying across state lines agrument?

Oh, but Ted, I did address the "Republican Health Care Plan," such as it. Remember, it was you who linked this joke to the thread. My post addressed that point and was equally on topic with anything you have posted. Too bad you missed it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 10 2010, 03:10 AM
Post #78


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(BoF @ Nov 9 2010, 05:20 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 9 2010, 04:01 PM) *
Want to stick to the topic - for a change......... whistling.gif

QUOTE(BoF @ Nov 9 2010, 03:45 PM) *
Is it possible insurance regulation will eventually end up being regulated by the feds under the interstate commerce clause if Republicans ever prevail on this buying across state lines agrument?

Oh, but Ted, I did address the "Republican Health Care Plan," such as it. Remember, it was you who linked this joke to the thread. My post addressed that point and was equally on topic with anything you have posted. Too bad you missed it.

And what exactly is the “joke”.

How about some real jokes from the current law passed by your friends.

We will save 500 Billion $ (with a cool.gif in Medicare over 10 years – you were a teacher do the math and then go look at the budget. Notice anything BoF?

The joke is the current Bill not the Republican proposals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: October 20th, 2018 - 02:35 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.