Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 03 Oct '09 22:20
    Why doesn't the federal government offer a match to any state program that meets certain criteria such as extending coverage to lower income and creating a state fund for people fitting under "pre-existing condition" categories?

    It could match dollar for dollar the benefits chosen by a state, but the state that choses to do universal care within its state would have to pay half of it at least. This would mean that an individual state could avoid participating, still save money for its residents by not doing a state program, and yet it could chose its own more moderate or conservative state program.

    The federal government would still be taxing people more, but at least the states would have to share half their state's pain. A state could put a very basic and temporary coverage program that helps the poorest for 5 years til they get their own, and the federal government would help them pay half of it. A state could just do a "pre-existing condition" program and the federal government would help pay half of that.

    What happened to federalism in America? Why not subsidize care in a way that respects freedom instead of forcing every state to participate in a giant national bureaucratic mess that seeks extreme forms of universal coverage?
  2. 04 Oct '09 00:06
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    Why doesn't the federal government offer a match to any state program that meets certain criteria such as extending coverage to lower income and creating a state fund for people fitting under "pre-existing condition" categories?

    It could match dollar for dollar the benefits chosen by a state, but the state that choses to do universal care within its s ...[text shortened]... pate in a giant national bureaucratic mess that seeks extreme forms of universal coverage?
    Where did you get your "state government good - federal government bad" mentality? But that's just a side question because your questions don't make sense.

    If by "extreme form of universal coverage" you mean NOT universal coverage at all... then you are correct. The plan being debated is not universal healthcare

    How does a program that the states don't have to pay a dime for take away from the "freedoms" of that state?
  3. 04 Oct '09 02:44
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Where did you get your "state government good - federal government bad" mentality? But that's just a side question because your questions don't make sense.

    If by "extreme form of universal coverage" you mean NOT universal coverage at all... then you are correct. The plan being debated is not universal healthcare

    How does a program that the states don't have to pay a dime for take away from the "freedoms" of that state?
    The federal government creating a federal program that does not involve state choice takes away from freedom of the states. Just because the federal government pays for it does not change this fact.

    By NOT universal coverage, you mean "technically" right? I mean after all, if the government will tax you thousands for not getting health coverage, how is that universal coverage you say... come on, if the government said you have to buy $10 t-shirts sold by gap or else the government would charge you $10 in taxes, then it would be a mandate in my book, how is it not a mandate to you? Is that a sick sort of game/joke?
  4. 04 Oct '09 03:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    [b]Where did you get your "state government good - federal government bad" mentality? But that's just a side question because your questions don't make sense.
    Its called freedom of choice rather than a small group of Washington insiders dictating to every state in the union. Its a frightening concept for a statist, isn't it?
  5. 04 Oct '09 03:18
    According to whats in the bill failure to get insurance will be a fine of about $1900. Failure to pay that, the IRS takes over w/ a up to $25,000 fine and 1 year incarceration. Who will be hurt by this? The working man ! The middle class and the poor!
  6. 04 Oct '09 03:35
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    According to whats in the bill failure to get insurance will be a fine of about $1900. Failure to pay that, the IRS takes over w/ a up to $25,000 fine and 1 year incarceration. Who will be hurt by this? The working man ! The middle class and the poor!
    Isn't it ironic? The party that is proported as being the party that helps the poor and the middle class is the party that will ultimatly end upward mobility for them all, if they have their way with things. Of course, we can all rest in peace knowing that the "experts" will take care of us.
  7. 04 Oct '09 04:57
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    According to whats in the bill failure to get insurance will be a fine of about $1900. Failure to pay that, the IRS takes over w/ a up to $25,000 fine and 1 year incarceration. Who will be hurt by this? The working man ! The middle class and the poor!
    Ah, very clever, so they make the fine less than insurance currently costs, but probably about the same as insurance will cost under the plan, no?

    If insurance under the plan costs $200/month, I would still consider a plan that charges 75% of the cost of insurance a mandate.

    Once you get to or below 50%, they are making it a little grayer, it's more like a real subsidy at that point.

    I think they will find in the Democratic party that the fine issue and the forced coverage will kick them in the pants amongst some of the poor during this recession, when every dollar helps people pay their rent and car payments.
  8. 04 Oct '09 04:58
    Originally posted by whodey
    Isn't it ironic? The party that is proported as being the party that helps the poor and the middle class is the party that will ultimatly end upward mobility for them all, if they have their way with things. Of course, we can all rest in peace knowing that the "experts" will take care of us.
    Very ironic... and a bit reminiscent of the communists in the former soviet union and the socialists in europe.
  9. 04 Oct '09 08:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    The federal government creating a federal program that does not involve state choice takes away from freedom of the states. Just because the federal government pays for it does not change this fact.

    By NOT universal coverage, you mean "technically" right? I mean after all, if the government will tax you thousands for not getting health coverage, how ...[text shortened]... ld be a mandate in my book, how is it not a mandate to you? Is that a sick sort of game/joke?
    What freedom does it take away exactly? What freedom, for example, does the US postal service take away from the states?

    Just like apples aren't "technically" oranges. Universal healthcare is government coverage for all with government run hospitals. What is being proposed is a public option along side private insurers with the same private (for profit) hospitals we have today.

    I haven't read the details on the so-called mandate, so I may even be against it myself depending on the wording. But the term "universal healthcare" is completely false, and objecting to it is not playing symantics.
  10. 04 Oct '09 08:41
    I also don't get it. State bureaucrats good, federal bureaucrats bad? Why?
  11. 04 Oct '09 08:50
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I also don't get it. State bureaucrats good, federal bureaucrats bad? Why?
    I loved John Stewart's reply to a Republican Senator who said something like, "If you walked into a DMV or a post office and loved their efficiency, you'll love government healthcare"

    Stewart said, "And why are you picking on the post office anyway? For .48 cents some guy drives to your house, picks up some crap that you wrote and flies it to Wyoming"

    He did have a good point about DMVs, though, which are ran by individual states.
  12. 04 Oct '09 09:18
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    What freedom does it take away exactly? What freedom, for example, does the US postal service take away from the states?

    Just like apples aren't "technically" oranges. Universal healthcare is government coverage for all with government run hospitals. What is being proposed is a public option along side private insurers with the same private (fo ...[text shortened]... "universal healthcare" is completely false, and objecting to it is not playing symantics.
    Okay, objection to tomato versus tomato (you know what I mean) may hinge on how the term "universal" is understood, but it certainly makes sense to call it something that appropriately entails health insurance coverage for all without opt outs imposing heavy fines on you... so I think universal or something similar remains fairly descriptive. What's a better word that would draw less opposition in this controversial topic, forced or extorted coverage on all? Maybe at least healthcare for all? universal healthcare sounds generally descriptive despite the fact that it does not describe single-payer as you suggest.
  13. 04 Oct '09 09:19
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I also don't get it. State bureaucrats good, federal bureaucrats bad? Why?
    Different of freedom to the states (federalism) versus the growing size and power of the federal government. In the US many consider it a change with many problems attached. States rights allow more flexibility at the local level to chose their poisons in terms of government programs.
  14. 04 Oct '09 09:20
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    I loved John Stewart's reply to a Republican Senator who said something like, "If you walked into a DMV or a post office and loved their efficiency, you'll love government healthcare"

    Stewart said, "And why are you picking on the post office anyway? For .48 cents some guy drives to your house, picks up some crap that you wrote and flies it to W ...[text shortened]...

    He did have a good point about DMVs, though, which are ran by individual states.
    Post offices are charging 48 cents and losing the country BILLIONS:


    Despite cost reductions against the fiscal 2009 plan of more than $6 billion and actions to grow revenue, the Postal Service (USPS) projects a net loss of more than $7 billion at fiscal year-end. The organization’s financial situation is compounded by its obligation to pay $5.4 billion to $5.8 billion annually to prefund retiree health benefits. This requirement, established in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, is an obligation that no other government agency has to pay.

    The Postal Service has incurred net losses in 11 of the last 12 fiscal quarters. The fiscal 2009 year-to-date net loss is $4.7 billion, compared to a loss in the same period last year of $1.1 billion, in spite of comprehensive, organization-wide cost reduction initiatives. The organization is working to mitigate a possible Sept. 30 cash shortfall of up to $700 million.
  15. 04 Oct '09 12:22
    Originally posted by whodey
    Isn't it ironic? The party that is proported as being the party that helps the poor and the middle class is the party that will ultimatly end upward mobility for them all, if they have their way with things. Of course, we can all rest in peace knowing that the "experts" will take care of us.
    What experts?