CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Do Americans just deep down hate to be governed? (Which wouldn't be surprising, given that most people who live here came here to get out from under the control of some other government or church or caste system).
Yes Obama has delivered the change he promised but has he changed the minds of most Americans? apparently not. The real proof will come this November when America will vote whether or not they like the change Obama has brought. He has not persuaded me that this change is good and I will vote accordingly; I want my country back and government out of my life.
Really since when? Didn't he promise to lower taxes? Take troops out of Iraq? Afghanistan?
Yes he said he would help the poor, but instead he is making America all poor except all the advisor's that work for him who are getting doubled wages.
Sure this is change from what Bush had, but its not the change he promised.
FYI, he has lowered taxes. Remember that stimulus bill everyone was screaming and ranting about? Several hundred BILLION of it was lowered taxes. It was one of the largest tax cuts in history. Where were you when this happened?
And Iraq troop levels are falling and continuing to fall on a trajectory towards a planned withdrawal date.
And he did not promise to get out of Afghanistan. He campaigned on INCREASING troop levels in Afghanistan. Which he has done.
etc...
Basically, you're wrong about everything. Which is impressive, because you'd think you'd get something right just by sheer chance.
Stimulus bill lowered whose taxes? The homeless? Where do you think that government was going to get all the money to cover all the people? How about the rich and the well off middle class.
You'd think you'd get something right just by sheer logic.
You know, before spouting off on a subject it's generally a good idea to know something about it.
95% of people in the US had their taxes cut by the stimulus. There were payroll tax offsets, homebuying tax credits, car buying tax credits, student tax credits... none of those are directed at "the homeless" you clueless wonder.
Yes, I was... and assuming your parents aren't making over a quarter million a year so were they and so were you. The fact that you didn't notice the lowered levels of withholding on your paycheck doesn't make it disapear. It just means you don't pay attention.
I don't know how much you earn, and I am not judging here or anything, but the facts are these:
People who got tax reduction are ones who earn a little over the poverty amount
The other people did not get benefits, in-fact they will get to pay for something they didn't get. The government is borrowing money that it doesn't have to pay for people as yourself. Meaning, I will have to pay double the taxes when the time comes to pay off the national debt. Which I am sure that you're aware of.
I don't know how much you earn, and I am not judging here or anything, but the facts are these:
People who got tax reduction are ones who earn a little over the poverty amount
You're ridiculously clueless, you know that?
I make near 6 figures. I got the tax cut. I am almost certain that I am not "little over the poverty amount". Your inability to notice what is happening on your pay check does not define reality. There were 280 BILLION dollars in tax cuts in that stimulus package, how the hell do you think they only went to people a little over the poverty level? Do you have any clue what you're talking about? Can you perform basic math? Do you know how much money that would be per person?
Let's say "a little" over is 25% over. You're talking about something like $6000 a person. In TAX breaks. To people below, at, or near the poverty level. How the hell many taxes do you think those people pay in the first place???
Context is important. He did promise change but he never said what kind of change. The passing of this bill has most certainly brought change but not the kind we wanted. But again, he never told us what kind of change. But that's always been his strength. He talks a good talk and makes everyone think he is on their side, that's how he got elected. But if you listen carefully, he never really says anything, it just sounds like it.
No he says things, its just they are all hidden with a bunch of fancy words. Many Obama supporters failed to see though what he was saying. It was clear from the start what his intentions were for the country if you listened and read between the lines.
The fact that a large number of people think that this IS nationalized health care... something it does not even remotely resemble... is all the demonstration necessary that they are not equipped to judge whether they want nationalized health care.
You have to know what it is before you can say if it's a good or bad thing.
OK help me with this one; how is the federal government providing health insurance to millions of Americans not nationalized health care. I could say that if this was done on the state level or by a municipality but it was done on the federal level. This is the federal government getting involved in health care, not the regulating of it but the providing of goods and services. It's like an umpire stepping up to the plate to bat. Everyone in that ballpark would be up in arms. The government is a regulatory office, it is not a player in the game.
Or to put it another way; If the federal government starts providing health insurance they have just entered the health care business and if they entered it, because of their size, the have just nationalized it. Meaning it's being provided on a national level.
Nationalized health care is when the government takes over the provision of care. As in, it nationalizes the doctors and hospitals such as the NHS system in Britain.
Last time I checked the health care system in the US was still very much private sector, with the exception of some VA facilities.
And health insurance is still mostly provided through the private sector as well, with the exception of the VA and medicare, etc... and this bill did not expand those either. In fact the GOP was screaming about the bill killing Grandma because it tries to REDUCE medicare outlays to reign in spending.
This bill isn't even vaguely related to nationalized health care, or nationalized health insurance. If it was the latter, it would work a hell of a lot better than it's going to. But it's not.
Notice the words you choose and how your are looking at the current situation: Last time I checked, is still mostly. This bill has far reaching ramifications that we will not see the effect of for years. It is one of the biggest problems with this bill; it lacks any kind of scope and is shortsighted. It addresses immediate problems without consideration of the long term consequences.
The federal government has just weighed in on health care and because of their weight, they will tip the scales.
Nationalized health care is when the government takes over the provision of care
Providing health insurance is the provision of care, one leads to the other. Health insurance is one part of the equation. It looks like this; insurance+doctors=care. And if you don't think health insurance companies control doctors and hospitals you haven't worked in the health care profession.
Things are changing. You don't introduce a mammoth bill like this and fight so hard to pass it in hope of it accomplishing nothing or having a small effect. The people who wrote this bill and passed it are not idiots on a fools errand. The know full well what they are doing and how to get it done. Controlling 1/6 of the economy will have an effect.
And last time I checked the headlines about this, it was all about providing health insurance to millions of Americans.
Yes, prioviding health insurance is an aspect of the provision of care.
The PRIVATE SECTOR is still providing the health insurance. Except for Medicare and such, which were all already there and were not expanded by this bill.
You can't just say...
"The government did something big about health care."
"Hmmm... 'government'... 'health care'... in the same sentence... OMG! Nationalized Health Care!"
It doesn't work that way. Your argument appears to be the government did something, therefore that's nationalization. Which means you don't know what nationalization means. The government does lots of things... even really really big things... that in NO WAY involve nationalizing the sector they are dealing with. And this is one of them.
If what I was saying was " the government did something, therefore that's nationalization." you would be correct; but it's not. What I'm saying is that when the federal government provides insurance (see section 1101 as an example) it has entered the market place and because of it's power it will begin to consume it's competition; it's simple economics. No one can compete against them. Because of the Feds infinite pool of money it can absorb expenses that would sink private sector firms. You can't compete with those kind of resources; they will outspend you every time. And as those insurance companies collapse who do you think will pick up all those people.
You see insurance companies stay afloat by controlling risk. If you force them, by federal statue, to take on high risk customers like people with preexisting conditions, which this bill does, you expose them to greater risk as a company. This is exactly what happened in the housing industry when lenders were forced to take on risky loans. It caused instability in the market and the market collapsed. And who stepped in to clean up the mess? And who took over Fannie May and Freddie Mac?
So you are correct this is not an outright implementation of nationalized health care. But by it's policies it will lead to instability in the market and the collapse of the health insurance industry. Which then will be cleaned up by the Fed; who else has that kind of money to do it?
So is Obama care nationalized health care? No, it's a Trojan Horse. That's my whole point and why I object to it so strongly. It sure looks and sounds good but inside is our demise.
Now again I say; the people who worked for this bill aren't idiots, they had a reason for pushing this bill so hard. And it wasn't so they could change nothing. Now we could argue about the objective of this bill but I'll just say it was strategic. You fight hard for something when you know it's important and it will give you the advantage you need.
I don't need to see "section 1101" to refer to the government providing insurance. It's called Medicare. It happened when JOHNSON was president.
And yes, forcing them to take on higher risk customers does, by definition, increase their risk. If only there was some way to offset that risk by also giving them access to a larger customer base of lower risk customers to cover the difference. Something involving mandated insurance... now that sounds familiar for some reason...
And yes, the people who were working on the bill didn't do it to achieve nothing. You're so amazingly astute to notice. They perhaps did it to extend coverage to tens of millions of people. And they perhaps did it to reign in costs that are rapidly on their way to either bankrupting the nation or pushing health care out of reach of a steadily climbing percentage of the population. Neither of those things is nothing.
The fact that you think you said something clever doesn't actually render it into some profound argument beyond my understanding.
Your ridiculous attempt to imply that the only possible reason Democrats and Republicans could have been fighting was over whether or not to actually nationalize the nation's health care provision and therefore the Democrats winning means health care nationalization must have occurred is infantile.
OK help me with this one; how is the federal government providing health insurance to millions of Americans not nationalized health care
The federal government isn't providing any insurance coverage for any Americans outside of our representatives. That was the point of the Public Option, which doesn't exist anymore. And a Public Insurance Option isn't "nationalized health care".
The federal government isn't providing any insurance coverage for any Americans outside of our representatives
OK, so I've been reading through the bill and I came across this just as an example of how the government isn't providing any insurance coverage for any Americans outside of our representatives. This comes from section 1101
SEC. 1101. 10 IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO INSURANCE FOR UNI-
11 NSURED INDIVIDUALS WITH A PREEXISTING
12 CONDITION.
13 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the
14 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish
15 a temporary high risk health insurance pool program to
16 provide health insurance coverage for eligible individuals
17 during the period beginning on the date on which such
18 program is established and ending on January 1, 2014.
Read through this section and check out the part about:
" $5,000,000,000 to pay claims against (and the administrative costs of) the high risk pool under this section that are in excess
of the amount of premiums collected from eligible in idividuals enrolled in the high risk pool"
But don't take my word for it; read the bill yourself.
OK, so I've been reading through the bill and I came across this just as an example of how the government isn't providing any insurance coverage for any Americans outside of our representatives.
Title I. Subtitle B is about the creation of an interim high risk pool: including people with preexisting conditions. Eligible individuals (d) will be able to purchase health insurance from already existing providers (B)(C)(e). They are also afforded regulatory protections (e) as participating members of the high risk pool. The subtitle also goes on to explicate possible management options for this high risk pool. The suggestions range from non-profits to the various states (2).
I don't know how else you interpret "provide" Of course it has to be defined how it does that, but that it does it is the important point.
You may have read a part of the legislation (or all of it), but you clearly don't fully understand the writing. As per Title I. Subtitle B, the government is only facilitating an environment wherein high risk customers can buy health insurance from health insurance issuers.
This country is a democracy, Obama and his plans are socialist. Nationalized health care for one would increase our taxes greatly,which by the way do not need to go any higher. Our national debt is currently over $12 trillion. If someone got cancer, they wouldn't be able to get treatment soon enough to cure or slow down the cancer. They would have to be put on a waiting list and pray to god that they can make it. Furthermore, America has one of the best health care programs in the world. People from all over the place come to America to get cancer treatment or surgery. Nationalized health care will get rid of all the top doctors because they are not going to want to get paid low government controlled wages.
It was never people acting out against health care reform, it was how much government involvement would be added that people had issues over. According to Ramussen about 55% want it repealed.
As for your link, "In the latest three-day rolling average, 83% of Democrats, 47% of independents, and 14% of Republicans approve of the job Obama is doing as president. Over the course of the prior week (March 15-21), the president averaged 81% approval among Democrats, 43% from independents, and 13% from Republicans"
That's not exactly much of a jump. The 4% increase in Independents is rather interesting but seeing as approval tends to change by a few percentages a day and it still falls within the margin of error it does not mean all that much.
