The transcript of my debate via My Polls. What this debate revealed to me is that people who are against Health Insurance Reform are not simply “crazy” but people with real concerns about the future of America. Their primary concerns are with the size and intrusiveness of the government as it pertains to the bill.
Note: I assigned an assumed name(Against the option) to the person I debated and referred to his/her gender(when I made that reference) as him/her or sir/miss to protect his/her privacy.
Against the option
Republicans have a bill that would only cost $61 Billion and would actually LOWER prices and EXPAND coverage but we don’t hear anything about that do we? That’s because this isn’t about “choice and competition” like plastic face Pelosi wants everyone to believe. It’s about more government control over YOUR life. These people think you are too dumb to take care of yourself and that you need a nanny state government to watch over you and tell you what to do and how to live. Sorry, I’m a big fuckin’ boy/girl. No one knows what’s best for me and my family except ME AND MY FAMILY! Get a clue, people!
Dominic La Maison
Against the option, the Republican Bill would indeed cost only 61 billion and lower premiums(up to 10% depending on market). However the GOP bill would only expand coverage to 3 million people by 2019 covering 83% as opposed to 81% today. The House bill(cost of 1.2 trillion/net cost of 894 billion) would also LOWER premiums, provide subsidies to reduce actual costs of the healthcare for certain individuals, establish a regulatory framework that would prevent denials of coverage based on preexisting conditions etc and EXPAND coverage to a much MORE SIGNIFICANT # of 36 million people covering 96% as opposed to 81% today. Furthermore the House bill would REDUCE FEDERAL DEFECITS by 129 billion by 2019 as opposed to 68 billion under the republican bill. Finally, the House bill IS NOT a government takeover of healthcare. Under this bill the effect on people lost by private insurance to the public option would be -6 million(CBO) or -12million(Lewin group) both of which do not represent a threat to private insurance. Please research the facts “big boy/girl”
Against the option
Where exactly are you obtaining this information? Even the democrats concede that their plans will RAISE premiums for all Americans per the report that the health industry released a few weeks ago. Sure it would expand coverage, but at what cost? Name me a SINGLE government entitlement program that is not running significantly over budget? Name a single country in the world that has nationalized health care and is not going bankrupt from it? For you to honestly think that we are going to lower deficits by spending MORE money takes a supreme act of willful ignorance. Maybe you, sir, are the one who needs to research ALL SIDES, not sure spout white house talking points. Thanks, buddy, but no thanks.
Dominic La Maison
White house talking points? No sir/miss how do the words non-partisan, independent sources sound to you? Info taken straight from non-partisan independent CBO, “editorial independence” Lewin group board, non-partisn Factcheck.org. Furthermore, the two studies released by the industry groups estimate only the costs without factoring in the savings. In other words they cherry-picked facts. Here are all pertinent links(you may have to copy and paste, I don’t know how to link on replies.
1) Republican bill (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962a
mendmentBoehner.pdf)
2) House bill
(http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10706/hr3962D
ingell_with_mgr_amendment.pdf)
3)Lewin group (http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/LewinCo
standCoverageImpactsofPublicPlan-Alternative%20Des
ignOptions.pdf)
3) Fact check (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/the-government-r
un-mantra/)
4)(http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-pricewater
housecoopers-premium-problem/)
Your point on nationalized healthcare is moot b/c the house bill does NOT mean gov’t takeover.
Willful ignorance, it seems you don’t understand that while the spending would INCREASE the defecit, the revenue provisions and cost savings provisions of the bill would bring in more money than it costs leading to a net DECREASE in defecits. Read analysis I have sent you then come back. I have thoroughly researched both sides of the issue. Thanks.
Against the option
I will read your links, thank you. Just a few questions. Do you deny that the government will have to approve what type of insurance coverage I can buy? Do you deny that every citizens of this country will be FORCED to buy healthcare, no matter if they want it or not. Just because the government won’t technically own the industry does not mean that they don’t control it. Not to mention the CBO data is bogus because the Democrats front loaded the cuts and taxes and back loaded the spending. So sure it looks great on paper for the first 10 years but what happens after that?
Dominic La Maison
The answers to both your questions are no. The answers to the implications that you are obviously promoting are quite different. First off you are right that government will have to approve it but you are implying a government takeover. Rather, insurance company policies will have to meet certain standards and abide by certain rules(ex no denial based on pre-existing conditions) This is regulation of a company not a government takeover.
To your second point, yes people will have to buy it but there are “hardship” and other exclusions. Furthermore, they will be forced to buy healthcare but NOT the public option. You are right to a certain extent that Dems have frontloaded cuts and taxes and backloaded the spending(coverage requirement of the Bill takes effect in 2013).However, the analysis is still valid b/c the CBO has done it year by year. They have provided a handy set of tables for convienience. Furthermore the CBO has done a tentative analysis of beyond 2019 and has concluded it will reduce defecits slightly or be defecit neutral in years beyond.(Although CBO notes it is subject to greater degree of uncertainty.)
Against the option
The fact remains that a government entitlement program has never even come close to its projected budget. You expect me to believe that they got it right this time when, countless times in the past, they have been consistently wrong? Take one look at experiment states like Mass. or Hawaii. The state of Mass. is going bankrupt because of healthcare system just like the one passed in the House. Hawaii had to completely repeal theirs after only a few weeks because they were so over budget. I am not willing to roll the dice and mortgage my sons future on the sketchy accounting practices of the federal government.
Dominic La Maison
That’s right, but what seperates this from other’s is that the public option(the only government aspect of the plan) will have to pay for itself(it is not subsidized) and it’s startup costs. Thus, if it becomes too expensive to support itself it will have to be reformed or ended. This acts as a failsafe measure against skyrocketting costs. Unfortunately for Hawaii and Mass there plan was completely state subsidized and that led to the problems you have cited.
Against the option
I’m sorry but if it all comes down to the federal government doing the right thing if it comes down to it than you will never persuade me. Once they have the power they will NEVER EVER EVER relinquish it no matter how messed up it is. Better to not let them have it in the first place. I will take that position to the grave.
Dominic La Maison
What power does the federal government gain from starting a public option? That makes no sense at all. If your position is based on an ingrained mistrust of the government, you are simply biased and are not considering either bills fairly! In which case no amount of facts or evidence will convince you! Thanks for your time though.
Against the option
The founders knew that a powerful centralized government was the enemy of a free man, not his friend. That is why we have the 10th amendment. It is truly a shame that we have come so far from what the founders envisioned for this nation. Jefferson et al are spinning in their graves.
Dominic La Maison
When did this become a debate about the founding father’s perspective on the Federal government? The founding Father’s made a great constitution but they were in no way united against government interference. I would like to point you to Alexander Hamilton who helped establish the first Central Bank and the “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution. I am not arguing (at this juncture) for or against a “large” government but rather that the vision of our founding fathers were as diverse as our visions today.
Against the option
You’re a smart dude, Dominic, and I thoroughly enjoy debating you. I hope to pick this up later as I actually need to get some work done at some point today! Later, bro…
Dominic La Maison
Thanks, I look forward to speaking to you again in the future.
Dominic La Maison
Latest posts by Dominic La Maison (see all)
- Health Care: A Debate - November 18, 2009
- Czar Talk: Separating Fact From Fiction - October 26, 2009
Great debate, the founding fathers bit surprised me though, since they TRIED a weak central government in the form of the Articles of Confederation, and it failed horribly (see: Whiskey Rebellion)