The Debates for '08

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"][quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff']Okay the above post makes no sense to me and is badly typed so I'll ignore it just like I ignore most of the GOP[/color][/quote]In all honesty, I had the same thought when I read that post. o_O

It certainly will have no impact on who I chose to vote for. I'd need far more than that to change my opinion. Though for some odd reason, I'm now wishing I had seen the debates. Perhaps I should go and see if someone uploaded it to YouTube when I'm done here.
[/FONT]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Anime_girl5;823209]I'm not stupid![/QUOTE]Reread what I said, the word stupid was not in there.[quote name='Anime_girl5;823209]and u dont listen then.[/QUOTE]If you want me to listen, you will have to extend the same courtesy to me. A one sided debate is pretty boring after all. [QUOTE=Anime_girl5;823209']I believe obama is wrong. and if he wins, america is doomed.[/quote]Why. You again fail to give any reasons or facts to back this statement. Tell us why you think Obama is wrong and America is doomed. [QUOTE=Anime_girl5']but ik for a fact that I am right about obama.

get over it please.[/QUOTE]No you don't. You're coming across as someone who is ignorant of the political situation our country is in. You'll have to do better than that.

There's no need to get frustrated over people not believing what you do. That's the beauty of America in the first place, the freedom to have different political views. So again, tell us more than blanket statements that don't prove a thing.

[Mr. Blonde]

All of my posts in this thread have been filled with reasoning and rational thought but I'm going to take this post to challenge anime girl to a debate to defend her position (I guess you could call it that) right here in this thread, since this is the debate thread. I know this message could be handled in a pm but I think a lot of people would be interested to see this debate. So you're all invited to come and watch the train wreck.

Take care.

[COLOR="Blue"]Obama '08[/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']First of all, I'd hardly turn to the NY Post for comprehensive journalism. It's little more than a glorified tabloid. Murdoch prints what Washington bureucrats pay him to print.[/quote] Credo is of very little value to me here. The content of their messages should be judged by just that.

[quote name='Katakidoushi']Through all of the articles we've sited and experts (some of us) have quoted, one fact remains undeniable, that Barack Obama's health care plan is more favorable to a wider majority of the population. You mentioned you had a problem with government backed insurance, how do you believe McCain is going to pay for those "high risk" pools? The same way they pay for them now, with government backing. His plan is unnessesarily complicated. [/quote]

I have a problem with the government backing all insurance. I don't mind there being certain semblances of high risk plans.

[quote name='Katakidoushi']The Brookings Institution and Urban Institute's Tax Policy Center estimate that the tax-related provisions in the McCain plan would cost about $1.3 trillion over ten years starting in 2009. In addition, the Guaranteed Access Plans, or high-risk pools, envisioned in the plan would cost about $70-$100 billion over this period. Over the 10-year period analyzed by the TPC, Obama's plan provides far greater "bang-for-the-buck," and spending far less per capita for its coverage of the uninsured population.[/quote]

Of course, this is somehow assuming that Obama's wider coverage is going to make the prices of high-risk people who get insurance from the government-backed companies suddenly vanish. They won't. The GAP would be a state function, and wouldn't require that the government insure the private insurer. In essence, the GAP plan will allow the coverage of higher risk individuals without costing the Government a dime.

[quote name='Katakidoushi']Also how does McCain expect to be able to cover millions upon millions of high risk Americans with a pool that can barely (and ineffeciantly) cover a couple hundred thousand people now. Even with the expansion of these pools the Tax Policy Center estimates that under McCain's health plan by 2013, 16 million Americans would lose the health benefits they get from their employer and the number of uninsured would increase to 55 million, 8 million more than today. Twenty million Americans; about one in every eight people with job-based coverage would lose their current coverage as a result of the change in the tax treatment of coverage. [/quote]

And how does Obama plan to cover it? By forcing companies to provide insurance, and when these pools call in their tab (an assumption that must be made), those companies will fail, people will go uninsured, and migrate to the next company that will require to give even rates. Or, the government pays for it. Either way, the government pays, and forcing provisions for high-risk investors is similar to the programs that forced high-risk loans. Look where that got us.

Losing health benefits from their employer isn't so bad, since it encourages the people to go to private insurance. They receive a tax credit either way, so the only move from employer-based insurance to private insurance would be influenced by the inefficiency of the employer-based insurance programs. Employers would actually have to be competitive to retain their prices, which they will, since the overall benefit of the tax credit will offset the increase in taxes. Obama's plan forces companies to provide insurance; prices that they probably wouldn't be able to afford with all of the provisions to cover every single high-risk person in the nation.

[quote name='Katakidoushi']Initially, this loss of job-based coverage would be offset by an increase in coverage in the nongroup market (although not necessarily for the same individuals). Within five years, however, the net effect of the plan is expected to be a net reduction in coverage relative to what would have been observed if the tax treatment of employer-sponsored coverage remains as it is now. [/quote]

Employers already have tax breaks for providing coverage, and will receive the tax credit for insuring their employees. The idea that employers will simply abandon their employees on the matter and avoid getting the tax credits and the tax cuts is erroneous. The best part is, Americans will actually know whether or not they are insured, because 4/10 Americans change their job each year, never knowing if their new employer will give them benefits.

[quote name='Katakidoushi']The decline of job-based coverage would force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system (the nongroup market), where cost sharing is high and covered services are limited. McCain's proposal to deregulate this market would mean that people in it would lose protections they now have.[/quote]

And it would also reduce the regulations that stop competition and competitive pricing. Remember that the fundamental factor for McCain's plan is capitalism.

[quote name='Katakidoushi']How will he deal with age rating, medical underwriting, and pre-existing conditions? If McCain does not develop an individual health insurance market everyone can access, no matter how old they are or how sick they are, his scheme will fall way short.[/quote]

The GAP will give benefits to companies that insure high-risk people, and also expand the high risk pool. You are assuming that these high-risk costs will cease to exist on Obama's plan, when they won't.

[quote name='Katakidoushi']Loop hole after loop hole leaves his plan looking more like a leaky ship than a way out of our healthcare crisis. The question regarding the health care crisis has always been how do we protect the sick? What is an AIDS patient that spends nearly 1 million a year on medication going to do with $2,500? They're going to die.[/quote]

Yes, because the only benefit that any aids patient will ever get is the tax credit. If that were true, all of the AIDs patients would already be dead.

[quote name='Katakidoushi']By deregulating the healthcare market, McCain plan would clearly decrease the sharing of health care risk. This would result in lower insurance costs for the young and healthy but would increase cost and decrease access for older individuals and the sick (the people who need health care.

You're assuming that capitalism and social Darwinism would take over just as it has in other industries and then you say you can't compare health care to other industries. Why hasn't your theory worked regarding oil prices? Why doesn't Shell just drop their price of gas by $1 a gallon and clean up? Because that's not how the real world works.[/quote]

Remember the GAP plan and the pool expansion. Also, Social Darwinism will work for insurance, because unlike Oil Prices, Insurance is an active market not restricted to location and not run by hearsay and stocks. Why is it that that the prices in retail have fallen to the smallest values possible? Why is it that companies that give out decent wages thrive? Capitalism.


[quote name='Katakidoushi']Healthcare cost inflation is a constant. It has always rose and it will always rise. A dip in healthcare costs under McCain's plan is next to impossible. It won't dip under Obama's plan either but at least the sick will get the care they need. The $2,500 ($5,000 for families) bonus would be obsolete as soon as the market costs rise, which is inevitable.[/QUOTE]

It never ceases to amaze me that you continue to assume that capitalism will fail, and then just assume that McCains plan will fail. How it is that job-based insurance coverage will fail when the tax credit will give net benefits to companies that give insurance, including all of the various other tax breaks they receive? The assumption that people will move to the private market (which just lists these people as "Uninsured" and carries on with life)? That would mean that job-based employer coverage would be obsolete, and it wouldn't matter whether or not jobs gave insurance anymore.

[Mr. Blonde]

It's really as if you're completely ignoring everything I write down. I'm not assuming that McCain's health care plan will fail, I'm giving you expert opinions, hard numbers and basically outright common sense to refute the conservative twaddle you keep throwing against the wall, hoping it will stick. I'm tired of this argument, and your hot air is giving me a headache.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

And from my careful questioning and prodding, I have found that these "experts" are incredibly biased, short-sighted, and are ignorant of key aspects of this plan.

[Mr. Blonde]

You may think them bias because you don't agree with what they say but I'd hardly consider the Tax Policy Center and Brookings Institute bias. If you'd like to continue to argue with me you can pm me but we should end this in this post. We're now bickering like old people.