- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Cancel and change are the same thing in this case. They cancel it and offer a different one that fits the law.
Incorrect. They are specifically allowed to amend their policies to increase benefits or to comply with the requirements of grandfathered plans.
http://www.ibx.com/healthcarereform/faq/grandfathered.html (Under: What changes will not cause a health plan to lose grandfathered status? -also notice that it is the plan that is grandfathered)
you vs. you
You're trying to say that I admitted that he lied and intimating that I am telling you he didn't lie all at the same time.
are you forgetting that you mentioned that Obama lied about keeping your doctor
If you look at my argument, you will see that I specifically used "lie" in quotes to refer to you saying "Obama was found to be lying", not to assert the position myself. C'mon, man, you are smarter than this when you are trying.
Are you saying that you never said he didn't lie
I like trying to use words correctly, and, since an assertion of lying would mean that I knew his intent, that would not be, and has not been, my position.
if we change the definition of the words or the timeframe of when he used them he isn't a liar
- At noon: "The sun is straight up." = True
- One hour later: "The sun is straight up." = False
Yes, when you say something matters.
Helps to know what you are reading I guess.
this says that an individual does not have to cancel their current plan - this could possibly mean that the plan or the individual is grandfathered, so let's look further shall we:
the vey next sentence:
(2) CONTINUATION OF COVERAGE.—With respect to a group
health plan or health insurance coverage in which an individual
was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act, this subtitle
and subtitle A (and the amendments made by such subtitles)
shall not apply to such plan or coverage, regardless of whether
the individual renews such coverage after such date of enactment.
This is saying that certain rules will specifically not apply to the "plan or coverage", but still might be cryptic for the less capable readers out there - let's see if there is anything better:
DEFINITION.—In this title, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
plan’’ means any group health plan or health insurance coverage
to which this section applies.
(1) INDIVIDUAL MARKET.—A health insurance issuer shall
consider all enrollees in all health plans (other than grandfathered
health plans) offered by such issuer in the individual
market, including those enrollees who do not enroll in such
plans through the Exchange, to be members of a single risk
(2) SMALL GROUP MARKET.—A health insurance issuer shall
consider all enrollees in all health plans (other than grandfathered
health plans) offered by such issuer in the small
group market, including those enrollees who do not enroll in
such plans through the Exchange, to be members of a single
(4) STATE LAW.—A State law requiring grandfathered
health plans to be included in a pool described in paragraph
(1) or (2) shall not apply.
This subsection shall not apply to a grandfathered
health plan or the issuer of a grandfathered health plan with
respect to that plan.
Clauses (i) and (ii) shall not
apply if the employee (or any individual described in
the last sentence of clause (i)) is covered under the
eligible employer-sponsored plan or the grandfathered
(D) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH PLAN.—Coverage under
a grandfathered health plan.
(B) any other plan or coverage offered in the small
or large group market within a State.
Such term shall include a grandfathered health plan described
in paragraph (1)(D) offered in a group market.
A health insurance issuer
offering group or individual health insurance coverage (including
a grandfathered health plan) shall
Beginning not later than January
1, 2011, a health insurance issuer offering group or individual
health insurance coverage (including a grandfathered
health plan) shall,
of sections 2715 and 2718 of the Public Health Service Act
(as added by subtitle A) shall apply to grandfathered health
plans for plan years beginning on or after the date of enactment
of this Act.
But hey, there are a couple references to "grandfathered enrollees", how can we be sure that it means enrollees in a grandfathered plan??
(4) DEFINITION OF GRANDFATHERED ENROLLEE.—In this
subsection, the term ‘grandfathered enrollee’ means an individual
who is enrolled (effective as of the date of enactment
of this subsection) in an MA local plan in an area that is
identified by the Secretary under paragraph (1).
But how do we know that Section 1251 specifically is referring to the plan:
(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH PLAN.—The term ‘grandfathered
health plan’ has the meaning given such term
by section 1251 of the Patient Protection and Affordable
any more questions....?
The insurance plans are not grandfathered, the purchasers are.
Nope. Try again.
some plans had to change
'had to change' is quite different than had to be cancelled. Insurance companies could choose to fix their plans or cancel them, and they chose to cancel them. I think it was generally a quite reasonable choice (instead of trying to manage mutiple plans, etc.), but it was a choice.
"to tell me he didn't lie is ridiculous" vs. "Obama did lie. You have even admitted that."
you vs. you
They were both lies
To touch on "you can keep your plan." I think this occurred because before the plan passed this was (not formed the way I would have, but) basically accurate (depending on the meaning of 'can'); it became inaccurate when he kept using it after the bill took effect since people then started buying new plans that would not be grandfathered. I still don't like the language, but I fault him a bit less on this one than the first.
He did about as good a job as could have been done.
Sounds about right to me.
They weren't all grandfathered.
Here is the official pdf . Section 1251 (page 99) describes the grandfather plans. (There are other sections that refer to this section or just to grandfather plan(s).)
as long as the insurance plan you had followed the new rules.
All plans had to comply with some changes:
End lifetime limits
End rescissions except for fraud
Cover children up to age 26
Keep overhead (marketing, bonuses, etc.) to less than 20% of premiums
But, grandfathered plans were exempt from requirements like:
Preventive care without a co-pay
Right to appeal coverage decisions
Not charge fees for emergency care at out-of-network hospitals
Rate Review for excessive premium increases
Grandfathered Individual plans also did not have to comply with the requirements to:
Not have yearly coverage limits
Provide coverage regardless of preexisting conditions.
a lot of the grandfathering came after Obama was found to be lying.
The "lie" was that you could keep your doctor, which was not what the bill said. The bill did say current plans did not have to comply with all of the new requirements.
The modification to grandfathering was to allow plans issued after the effective date of the law to be grandfathered. Largely because many individual plans had been issued after the effective date of the law but would not comply with future requirements - again, the insurance companies fault - not Obamacare.
Apparently Obama knew one other thing that you either didn't know or have forgotten - plans that existed when the law went into effect were grandfathered. There were a few restrictions: they had to remain substantially the same plan, keep at least one person on the plan, etc., but the insurance companies could keep offering the plans. They chose not to.
At work at the moment so it may be later this evening.
Take your time, I am actually headed out of town for a couple days - niece is having a baby, apropos, eh? (Mmm, hopefully not now that I think about it.) Rather not try to keep typing everything on the phone - depends on how long we are waiting I suppose.
Will keep an eye out for studies and read if there's time.
An actual study doesn't generally involve cherry-picked result, and when it does so it doesn't pass peer review
A single study is suceptible to bias as is a study of studies.
Your link was not to a study
A study of studies is still a study. Are you able to see the methodology etc - if not, I might be able to paste portions for you to evaluate, or the list of citations, etc.
But your linked article does not, in fact, provide evidence, now, does it?
How is a study published in the Journal of the American Medicine Association done by 4 MDs and a PhD with nearly 100 citations not evidence?
studies cannot possibly determine whether the fetus is experiencing something that can be directly compared to what we experience as pain
Then why not draw the line at day 1?
the ability for a fetus to react to a painful stimulus in a manner different from a nonpainful one as early as 15 weeks
post the reference, I'll check it out.
that the structures that allow such can form as early as 12 weeks
Do you have evidence that the thalamocortical fibers referred to develop earlier than the 23 weeks that they suggest, or evidence that the structures aren't required for pain recognition?
I strongly suspect cherry picking of some kind to be involved here
Couldn't it be vice-versa - that the other study involves cherry-picking?
I can certainly question the conclusions drawn.
Sure - your opinion could be anything, but is less persuasive to me than evidence.
Good luck with your essay. Here is some feedback:
You may not want to say "Jefferson made the statement 'that government is best which governs least.'" since he actually never said that. You might try finding a better quote, or just say it is often attributed to Jefferson like in the debate description.
"its ability to govern can only be what the people want"
Maybe "its ability to govern should only be what the people want", since a government often can do things people may not want if there is secrecy, deception, etc.
Might be worth investigating what "least" would mean.
if he did would it be better
If God as generally defined, able to bring souls into heaven etc., existed then presumably God could immediately bring all souls to heaven and things would be better. Since that is not the case, it is unlikely that God, as we describe, exists.
if people followed the good parts of what he says.
In order to follow only the "good parts", people would have to decide for themselves what parts are good. Which would mean we would still be using our own morality - exactly the same as today.
I would support legislation under these conditions.
Is it your belief that legislation which sufficiently addresses these conditions is possible?
my call would be to get rid of the cat.
but do you believe it should be legal for a person to get rid of either one?
[t]here are laws against humans eating human flesh, wish fetuses would fall under, so it wouldn't be acceptable
again this is current law - not your position on whether it should be law, or whether it is moral.
does self-defense include not just where you think you will likely die, but also where you think you will be (severely?) injured?
No law in this case. & Legally, sure.
Sweet - we have some answers!!
Ok - so, less than lethal threat, very unlikely to endanger others and we are legally allowed to kill it. If a mother takes some steps (vitamins, exercise, etc.) that would equate to the rock throwing - how is aborting the less-than-lethal child now different?
I would need more info as to why they believe it to have rabies to make the call.
Seemingly excessive saliva, absence of skittishness in a normally passive animal, etc.
fetus' have equal rights
equal rights is not dispositive of fetus v fetus rights.
I'd support abortion in most cases under this category
Do you think legal language is possible which addresses all of your concerns?
legislating the methodology involved is a mistake, as it ultimately amounts to voters and politicians telling doctors how to do their job
If voters and politicians don't specify, then it will be left up to the courts to interpret how the law applies rather than the doctor.
50/50 chance of surviving
50/50 chance of live birth at any stage after viability through vaginal or c-section.
Chance of dying during the abortion, let's say 1 (more than the average of 0.6) in 100,000.
Complication found during the routine mid-term ultrasound done between 18 and 20 weeks - let's say 19 weeks.
PS: Thanks for your continued time.
PPS: I keep hitting Dispute rather than Clarify only because Clarify doesn't let you control which side your argument is tagged with.
misrepresenting my replies
You said "doesn't mean we know what they all are" intonating hiddenness and when I said I would expect objective morality to be more prevalent, you said "It is".
Thus my question of whether you consider it both prevalent and hidden - am I missing something here??
I will back off and leave you to your stage.
As we approach questions which have measurable effects
See below at 'measure'.
When you ask different moral questions
I didn't ask different moral questions - you presented an attempt at an example of an objectively moral action, and I showed there was an exception.
"deformity" in this regard would be a medical diagnosis.
'deformity' is not a single boolean attribute, but a perceived distance from a norm.
clubbed foot, down syndrome, anencephaly, or an extra pinky toe all may count as deformity to some degree. Each one might influence the question differently.
If they were based on subjective perception then that would suggest subjective morality and this debate would be over.
Indeed, seemingly self-evident statements tend to be less than useful in ending debates on this site.
all are measurable qualities which could be verified and examined to arrive at an objective answer regardless of (subjective) perception.
See below at 'measure'.
I don’t have to name all possible answers to all of life’s moral questions in order to posit the existence of moral objectivity
I am not asking for "all", only "any". I believe I have addressed every one you have presented thus far.
I assume that is what you understand “universal/objective” to imply?
I consider objective morality basically to be morality outside human ontology.
you seem to feel the need to randomly insert them
I used them as adjectives and everything. Maybe you should explain why you think they are not used properly.
If there is good evidence that our morality has evolved from primates which helped them survive then perhaps survival is the goal you impose on this criterion to
prove objective morality.
I think natural selection produced survival, not morality - keep in mind that it also produced all animal actions which you might consider immoral: rape, slavery, eating the young, etc.
Who is to say "objectively" that human survival for an individual, group, or as a whole is an unqualified "good"? If your goal was maximizing life, you might think that human destruction of other species and their environments might not be "good".
I also don’t assert such a requirement need exist to posit moral objectivism.
What do you assert is required exactly?
The usefulness becomes apparent when we recognize that moral questions which potentially affect the outcome of our behavior can be answered
Is there some moral question that you can claim to answer?
more than just the questions of perspective like who is doing or interpreting the measurements - which would eventually need to be dealt with, the most important thing to remember every time you use the word measure is that more than just measurement is needed. You need to be able to show how any measurement advances toward a specified moral. The goal is antecedent to the measurement.
Minimizing pain, maximizing happiness, preserving life, the most for the greatest number, (or for scientologist: the most for the greatest number "of dynamics"), etc.
These goals will inevitably run counter to each other (or even be internally at odds).
$750,000,000,000 taken from Medicare
A) It was a reduction in growth of Medicare spending
B) The same exact reductions were in Paul Ryan's budget ref
C) The reductions were made by
reducing payments for Medicare Advantage (which was being given more than Medicare to provide the same benefits - thank a Republican for wasting your money)
and reducing payments to hospitals that have too many re-admissions
not by reducing benefits
People unable to keep their doctors
I do agree that he should have used more precise language. He should have said "Your insurance company can keep offering your same plan" - that way if the insurance companies cancelled plans (which they did not have to do), the blame would have gone where it belonged.
Healthcare costs still rising
It has been growing at the lowest rates since we started keeping statistics in 1960
Insurance costs rising
Getting rid of scam insurance plans will do that. Also, there are subsidies for those with low-income to afford premiums. Moreover the degree to which premiums is increasing is still unclear ref
Emergency Rooms more crowded than ever before
Wait, adding millions more people with insurance increases healthcare demand - I'm shocked! The bill does provide incentives to get more General Practitioners, but, surprise surprise, med-school takes time...
Doctors unable to make a living practicing medicine
Ha - you're kidding, right?
So, "expanding the idea" (which is putting it rather lightly) doesn't count as forming "zionism"
It doesn't count as "founding" it, no. After all: he didn't invent the term, nor the practice.
I meant "declaration of independence".
The Declaration does include the phrase "Rock of Israel" which was deliberately included as a compromise double-entendre which could mean God for believers (a reference to 2 Samuel 23:3) and land of Israel for the secular.
The official English Translation was initially 'Almighty God' ref
Herzl, the Declaration, and others often refer to the Jewish historic connection to the land - couldn't the same connection be evoked by the American Indians, and by the people that were in the land when the Jews got there, and by the ISIL about the Levant, or anyone whose ancestors lived anywhere basically?
Ask a Palestinian if these parts of the Declaration are being adhered to:
"it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion"
"full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions"
it was still conditional
What part of
"To your offspring I will give this land."
"All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever."
"The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."
and the more than 100 other verses I linked to sounds conditional?
Personally, I feel that it does belong to Mexico
Ha. Ok, topic for another debate I guess.
but not for that reason
Then thank you for concurring that the reason(s) you initially gave do not support the land belonging to them.
their portion of the land
What do you think constitutes "their portion of the land"? The 1947 UN partition plan, the 67 plan, Oslo, Peel, all of what Jews consider Eretz Israel (including Jordan), etc.
You included my argument about how the land was acquired, but not a response, did it perhaps get forgotten in the mix?
If they are already going to be associated with Obamacare - then it won't help to run, correct?
Therefore, might it be better to highlight the positives:
10 million fewer uninsured
Eliminating denials based on pre-existing conditions
Eliminating recessions of coverage when a person becomes sick
Removal of lifetime and annual caps
Preventative tests without co-pay
The rate of growth for the cost of healthcare is falling
You act like democrats or others are for killing babies, which is a facile understanding of the issue. I gave several reasons why people oppose such laws including the Texas law you were referring to.
The Texas law closed more than 80% of the women's health clinics in Texas - do you think that is a good thing? or a "pro-life" thing?
People may think that abortion laws do not generally prevent the practice, but only make it more dangerous.
And, people may think that women are in the best (and maybe only) position to weigh all of the risks and make the decision. Often late term abortions are done by women who wanted the pregnancy, but it becomes untenable - they aren't just having late-term abortions for no reason.
I believe that it is implied that I favor legislation that matches my stance on the issue.
I think there are generally other factors in supporting legislation than just whether I would do something myself. I may not smoke, but may not favor legislation banning smoking outright, etc. Factors such as cost of executing the law, whether a law can be written in a sufficient way to deal with all the relevant factors clearly enough to sufficiently mitigate litigiousness, unintended consequences (e.g. laws requiring hospital admitting privileges may be justifiable on their face, but can end up closing clinics and increasing overall mortality), and the laws effectiveness (abortion laws may not actually reduce the number of abortions, but instead make them less safe), etc.
the relative rights of various animals
if different animals have different rights, then assigning the fetus "animal rights" becomes a bit less meaningful - is there a specific animal we should be using that provides the closest approximation?
I contest the fact that brain function, specifically, is the reason we assign ourselves more rights.
I gave it as one example of a difference used to justify rights, not as the only reason used. In your might-makes-right example, favoring the cat could still be justified.
right 'not be eaten'
If animals don't have a right not to be eaten, do fetuses?
does inadvertently stumbling into one in the desert/woods = provocation?
this would rarely be applicable
Rarity is here again being used to avoid the issue. It is either moral in your view or it isn't. Rarity might impact the way legislation is written but even then outliers should at least be considered.
If someone in the forest stumbles upon a fox that appears to be acting weird and is progressing towards them, could they morally kill it?
Should there be a law against killing it?
If someone is bitten by an animal outside of town and they think it has rabies (and is able to capture it), can they morally/legally have it tested since it would kill the animal for a less than lethal act?
I took those as hypotheticals to illustrate the complexities rather than direct questions
And they were offered as such, I was just curious as to what your response would be.
animal to animal
Right, I figure this might be more akin to the cat/goldfish thing. E.g. one pet poses a threat to the other, etc.
specifically regarding animal rights vs human rights
It is regarding the rights of the fetus, I assume that is whether it is vis-a-vis the mother or another fetus.
The mothers life trumps the life of the fetus, but non-fatal injury to the mother does not.
I was aiming more for the case where both have severe issues - e.g. severe deformation of the fetus combined with near certain likelihood of permanent organ damage for the mother if she continues the pregnancy.
I should state that I HATE using actual percentages here
I agree that this is a major factor in constructing relevant legislation, but I would caution that words like "actual threats", "severe", "life-threatening", etc are also vague. Shouldn't the law include "the methodology used to generate those chances" as well?
I am concerned with actual complications that threaten the mothers life.
If an actual pregnant woman is told by her doctor (after 12 weeks) that she has a complication with her pregnancy and has only a 50/50 chance of surviving if she were to attempt to have the child - should that qualify legally as life-threatening?
The scenario you presented was the owner choosing which one to get rid of
You certainly could still have said that neither was moral.
I believe I've communicated my preference quite thoroughly at this point.
Except what you think should be legal in such a case.
My answer regarding the legality was a factual response regarding the current state of affairs, not what I would prefer
That is what I thought, so I wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify. As an aside, I am not really interested in asking what the current law is, I can easily find that myself - my main concern is what people think the law should be and only tangentially what they think is moral.
I'm not looking at anyone's specific theory here.
Are you claiming an objective morality?
outside of the scope of this debate
your assertion that fetal rights should be analogous to animal rights is what brings them within the scope.
the term 'animal' specifically refers to non-humans
Humans are definitively animals. There are usages of the word animals which are intended to refer to non-humans and I read your statement to mean that, but it is certainly based on a given perspective.
If humans have preference because of additional brain function, can a cat be preferred over a goldfish for the same reason?
If there is a chance that the animal is carrying rabies, and it attacks you, it's dead anyway.
Unless it gets away - then you wouldn't perform the test. Or, maybe a person would consider it more moral to undergo the pain and treatment for rabies than to kill the animal to test it to see if they can forego that (less-than-lethal) cost.
Also, do you care to address the other questions that arose:
Can someone abort one child to preserve the life of its twin?
What about just to give it a much better chance?
There are also complications that could affect both the mother and the child - what balance should be drawn there?
What statistical probability is required to be considered life-threatening?
About CreateDebateThe CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Sharing ToolsInvite Your Friends
RSS & XML Feeds
Basic StuffUser Agreement