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

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    30 Sep '09 02:24 / 1 edit
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090930/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

    I'm at the point right now where I honestly just don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I just hope whatever they pass works, as I'm sick of my premiums going up by 5-10% a year.

    I also do wish Republicans would come up with something a bit more insightful than

    "Washington is not the answer," countered Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

    over and over and over again.

    What IS the answer, Senator?
  2. 30 Sep '09 02:58
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090930/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

    I'm at the point right now where I honestly just don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I just hope whatever they pass works, as I'm sick of my premiums going up by 5-10% a year.

    I also do wish Republicans would come up with something a bit more insightful than

    "Washi ...[text shortened]... Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

    over and over and over again.

    What IS the answer, Senator?
    I'm not a Senator, just a citizen, and I say fire them all and get some people in there that know how to read the Constitution.
  3. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    30 Sep '09 03:06
    Originally posted by josephw
    I'm not a Senator, just a citizen, and I say fire them all and get some people in there that know how to read the Constitution.
    Who did what that's in violation of or shows ignorance of the Constitution?
  4. 30 Sep '09 03:17
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090930/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

    I'm at the point right now where I honestly just don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I just hope whatever they pass works, as I'm sick of my premiums going up by 5-10% a year.

    I also do wish Republicans would come up with something a bit more insightful than

    "Washi ...[text shortened]... Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

    over and over and over again.

    What IS the answer, Senator?
    First answer is dump the public option

    Second answer is don't tax people who don't get insurance just for choosing not to get insurance.
  5. 30 Sep '09 10:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    First answer is dump the public option

    Second answer is don't tax people who don't get insurance just for choosing not to get insurance.
    These guys are not about choice, unless you want to kill your unborn child that is. Its all about control and taxation. Its about statism.
  6. 30 Sep '09 10:46
    A public option is not necessary as long as insurance is mandatory, subsidized for the poor and properly regulated.
  7. 30 Sep '09 10:54 / 6 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090930/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

    I'm at the point right now where I honestly just don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I just hope whatever they pass works, as I'm sick of my premiums going up by 5-10% a year.

    I also do wish Republicans would come up with something a bit more insightful than

    "Washi Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

    over and over and over again.

    What IS the answer, Senator?
    I posted a thread a while back that compared and contrasted the "liberal" approach to reform verses the conservative approach. Basically, the article I cited said that liberals use the rationaistic approach to change and the conservative uses empiricism. The gist of the article is that using the rationist approach, one must be able to take calculate of all possible outcomes in order for the change to be successful. However, some issues are simply to complex to know, therefore, using this apporach is problematic to say the least. He used the computer program trying to figure out weather patterns as an example. The complexity of weather patterns are simply too great for computers to accurately determine the weather at times.

    Conversely, conservatives look at lessons learned from the past. So what examples do we have of entitlement programs? Where is Medicaid/Medicare headed? Where is social security headed? Last I checked they were headed for insolvency, yet, we want bigger and better entitlements. Since health care is a "right", to hell with the affordibilty of it or other issues with entitlement policies I suppose. In addition, the liberal approach is to tackle massive change at one time as where the conservative approach is to pick away little by little at something so that one is able to "fix" what is broken in the previous small reforms. So my answer would be, first tackle bringing costs down rather than tackling who pays for it. That means tort reform. That means reducing the regulatory burden that drives costs up etc. Then as we do these things look at who pays or even if states should be making these decisions rather than a small elite group of Washington insiders. I think perhaps that is what the Senator is eluding to.

    Of course, the flaw in the conservative approach is that if reform is needed urgently and in large volume, the conservative model does not work. Perhaps this explains why reform is not tackled until things get to a critical level? The credit crisis is another example. It is almost as if they actively bring these issues to the brink so that they say they must use the liberal approach to reform. Then when in "crisis mode", they can have their way. No doubt, social security will be handled similarly.

    http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlolgPost.aspx?id=2147486771
  8. 30 Sep '09 11:02
    Originally posted by whodey

    Conversely, conservatives look at lessons learned from the past.
    So why do "conservatives" in your black-and-white world consistently ignore all empirical evidence concerning health care systems?
  9. 30 Sep '09 11:04
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    So why do "conservatives" in your black-and-white world consistently ignore all empirical evidence concerning health care systems?
    WHat "conservative" are you talking about?
  10. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    30 Sep '09 12:03
    Originally posted by sh76
    ....."Washington is not the answer," countered Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
    over and over and over again.

    What IS the answer, Senator?
    A GOP run Whitehouse with majorities in the Senate and in the House.
  11. 30 Sep '09 12:09
    Originally posted by kmax87
    A GOP run Whitehouse with majorities in the Senate and in the House.
    LOL. Lilke they really had answers the last time they occupied those positions. I will give "W" credit when he attempted to address social security. However, he was tarred and feathered for his attempt. No doubt, the same probably would have happened to him had he attempted to tackle the failing Medicare/Medicaid system. No doubt, any one who attempts to manipulate these "sacred cows" will experience similar rebukes.
  12. 30 Sep '09 12:23
    Originally posted by whodey
    I posted a thread a while back that compared and contrasted the "liberal" approach to reform verses the conservative approach. Basically, the article I cited said that liberals use the rationaistic approach to change and the conservative uses empiricism. The gist of the article is that using the rationist approach, one must be able to take calculate of all ...[text shortened]... y will be handled similarly.

    http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlolgPost.aspx?id=2147486771
    In addition, the liberal approach is to tackle massive change at one time as where the conservative approach is to pick away little by little at something so that one is able to "fix" what is broken in the previous small reforms.

    I agree - this refers to what the conservative approach SHOULD be. But it's not what the conservative approach actually is. The conservative approach is to proclaim that the system we currently have is working wonderfully and oppose almost all reform proposals.

    This stance leaves people who want reform in a major quandary. The only way to even get the issue on the table is to get Democrats in control of the presidency and both chambers of Congress. So when all the planets finally align perfectly, there's the feeling that EVERYTHING has to be done now because the next opportunity might not be until another 10-15 years have passed.

    I would love it if the GOP made it an official policy that it would put healthcare reform on the table EVERY year, and focus on making relatively small changes each time. If we had been taking gradual steps like this every year since 1994, we probably would have had most of the healthcare problems solved by now.
  13. 30 Sep '09 12:31
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    I would love it if the GOP made it an official policy that it would put healthcare reform on the table EVERY year, and focus on making relatively small changes each time. If we had been taking gradual steps like this every year since 1994, we probably would have had most of the healthcare problems solved by now.[/b]
    I think if these jokers are going to take it upon themselves to pass this massive legislation they should be forced to revisit the legislation and reform in yearly. Make in mandatory to make reforms. Make it part of ANY entitlement program, including social security. Of course, they won't want to do this, they would rather be out there raising funds for the next election. I say pound it into their heads that an entitlement policy equals added work ever year. That should slow down the pace a bit.
  14. 30 Sep '09 12:37
    Originally posted by whodey
    I think if these jokers are going to take it upon themselves to pass this massive legislation they should be forced to revisit the legislation and reform in yearly. Make in mandatory to make reforms. Make it part of ANY entitlement program, including social security. Of course, they won't want to do this, they would rather be out there raising funds for th ...[text shortened]... that an entitlement policy equals added work ever year. That should slow down the pace a bit.
    Excellent idea.
  15. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    30 Sep '09 14:51
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090930/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

    I'm at the point right now where I honestly just don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I just hope whatever they pass works, as I'm sick of my premiums going up by 5-10% a year.

    I also do wish Republicans would come up with something a bit more insightful than

    "Washi ...[text shortened]... Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

    over and over and over again.

    What IS the answer, Senator?
    Part of the answer, as I've heard many in the GOP say, is to eliminate restrictions that keep insurance companies from competing over state lines. That seems like a no brainer, but it's not in the bill that I'm aware of.

    Another part of the answer, as I've heard many in the GOP say, is tort reform, but presumably the trial lawyers have managed to keep that out of the bill. Wouldn't it be nice to find out how effective these reforms would be before massively overhauling the whole system?

    The reason they don't try these things first, in my opinion, is because lowering costs is only a secondary objective. The primary objective seems to be to gain as much control over our decisions as possible.

    Personally I don't believe the public option is dead yet. It will rear it's head in amendments and/or the reconciliation process if the Dems choose the nuclear option. This is the holy grail for the left, and they have to see this as their best chance at acquiring it. I think they'll go for broke.