Jump to content
kerpen

2008-09 Topic Choices

Which 08-09 topic do you want?  

1044 members have voted

  1. 1. Which 08-09 topic do you want?

    • Health Care
      106
    • Agriculture
      47
    • Energy
      456
    • Central Asia
      252
    • Immigration
      184


Recommended Posts

Seriously, it is incredibly difficult to make the kind of changes that universal health care would require. Opponents would only need 41 votes in the Senate to block it.
Are you saying a universal bill would prompt a presidential veto? Whom do you assume would be living at 1600 Pennsylvania when such a bill passed?

 

If you are referring to the so-called "supermajority" Senate rules, those are hardly carved in stone, and will in fact be bent/broken/repealed whenever it is politically expedient for the majority party to do so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree completely, Ankur. You have very good insurance because you work for a large employer, you are young, and I presume, healthy. If you worked for a small business or were self-employed, and had health issues, you would find a completely different situation.

 

This isn't a question of subsidized versus unsubsidized care, in my opinion, it's about the effects of government and large corporations on the market.

 

incorrect. i am an independent consultant. i pay for my own insurance out of pocket. but i carefully researched and selected which insurance i wanted to have.

 

you are correct in assuming i am young (relative to you ;)) and healthy. and if i had health issues, my insurance would cover it. although if i was in seriously poor health and could not earn an income or a regular income (ie. poor), that is where my position stands on government assistance - the poor should be afforded healthcare. but imo, no one who has a reasonable income should be getting healthcare subsidized. its not necessary nor desirable.

 

and on the issue of desirability, we have all seen the SNAFU we call medicare and medicaid. is there any reason to believe a national comprehensive healthcare program would be any less screwed up? it would be even MORE bureaucracy and red tape and ultimately prevent people from getting the help they need.

 

canada is a prime example of good in theory, failure in practice. a family friend of ours was diagnosed with cancer... but instead of getting prompt treatment, there were hundreds of people in 'more dire need of help' ahead of him... so he got some basic treatment, but no operation to remove the tumor or anything. by the time his number was called, his number was up. and he isnt the only person in that boat in canada.... i personally know of several people who have non-life threatening diseases, but still seriously inconvenient ones or in some cases mildly debilitating and still treatment is not prompt. and its all due to government control and triage.

 

that doesnt exist in private care because if you need healthcare and your insurance company doesnt pay up for it when you need it, they'll get sued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ankur, I'm afraid you're just wrong. You are right that I erred in thinking you worked for a large company. I'm glad you have good insurance. It is not the poor who are in the biggest problem with health insurance. They can qualify for Medicaid in many instances. The problem is a small business person who has a health condition. I'm not talking about the kind of problem that makes it impossible to work. I'm talking about high blood pressure, or diabetes, or mental health issues or hepatitis C. These are productive members of society who have a hard time, in many instances, passing underwriting.

 

I'm very sorry about your friend with a tumor. But the Canadian example is inapt. In 2003, Canada spent about $3,000 per person on health care. The U.S. spent about $5,700. If Canada were spending that kind of money, they would not have waiting lists. (By the way, when I recently made an appointment to meet with a surgeon about achilles calcification, I could not get an appointment for over two months).

 

I think it's interesting that you pick on Medicare and Medicaid. They are much better run than the private sector. Medicare's administrative costs are about 2%. Many health insurance companies are running at 20 to 25%. I read a report by an insurance company shill. He said those numbers are much closer. But even using his analysis, Medicare is still a lower percentage.

 

But the real problem is that insurance companies deny lots and lots of claims. I have handled hundreds of claims or lawsuits on behalf of individuals or health care providers. In my view, some insurance companies exist to deny claims.

 

You say, "n private care. . . if you need healthcare and your insurance company doesnt pay up for it when you need it, they'll get sued." For the most part, you're wrong. Most Americans get their health insurance through their employers. Private employer plans are governed by ERISA. ERISA preempts the kinds of claims you are talking about. Even outside of the ERISA context, those kinds of claims are incredibly difficult to prove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ankur,

 

As has been said many times, if you want to compare the US to a government run health care system, the best comparison is France becuase they spend closer to how much the US does than Canada and Britain, although still not as much as the US.

 

France is also regarded by most studies as the best health care system in the World.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this probably won't happen. But Health Care would be really interesting if Romney became President. ...Or it might just destroy a lot of differnt topics. WHatever happened to the Trading Resolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not saying she would get rid of the entire topic, but things like helath care for the ppor would limit it ALOT and kill alot of big affs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DUDE HEALTH CARE IS HILLARY'S TOP PRIORITY or very high up there...she even said that post-SCHIP veto

 

a) The last time Hillary attempted health care, she failed. No guarantee she would succeed this time.

 

B) Hillary is in the pocket of the health industry. That means even if I concede she's inevitable, when she gets her bill passed it won't look anything like the proposal she has now, mark my words.

 

c) None of the electable dems have a universal, single payer mandated system, means inherency for the biggest aff no matter what.

 

That said, I personally prefer energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying a universal bill would prompt a presidential veto? Whom do you assume would be living at 1600 Pennsylvania when such a bill passed?

 

If you are referring to the so-called "supermajority" Senate rules, those are hardly carved in stone, and will in fact be bent/broken/repealed whenever it is politically expedient for the majority party to do so...

 

I seriously doubt they will change the so called supermajority rule. In 2005 a group thought they had the votes but a few dissenting republicans joined in the gang of 14 to stop eliminating those rules. Thanks to that the republicans are in better shape party wise and are able to stop it. To actually overturn the rules you would need signs that the majority would be around for a while. With how often the senate can change hands the fear of being in the minority and not stopping legislation scares both parties. Plus I can not see either party picking up enough seats to do that. The republican fortunes may be low but I do not see the democrats gainning necessary votes to overturn the rule. At a complete sweep, and a miracle that will not happen, on election day democrats pick up six seats and go to 57. Still not enough votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a) The last time Hillary attempted health care, she failed. No guarantee she would succeed this time.

 

B) Hillary is in the pocket of the health industry. That means even if I concede she's inevitable, when she gets her bill passed it won't look anything like the proposal she has now, mark my words.

 

c) None of the electable dems have a universal, single payer mandated system, means inherency for the biggest aff no matter what.

 

That said, I personally prefer energy.

it might not universal but they are all up 4 health care legislation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nevertheless, energy will prove to be an interesting change in the topic viewpoint

 

 

Don't get me wrong, energy is my preferred topic in the final two...but how is it a "change in viewpoint?" It was the college topic 3 years ago and was the high school topic 10 years ago. I fail to see how that is a change in topic viewpoint...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i could be wrong but i think

a) s/he is a troll

B) that it is in reference to all the recent healthcare resolutions. MHC, SSA, and nat serve and PKO both had significant healthcare components.

 

and i tend to agree. i think we need a break from healthcare topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i could be wrong but i think

a) s/he is a troll

B) that it is in reference to all the recent healthcare resolutions. MHC, SSA, and nat serve and PKO both had significant healthcare components.

 

and i tend to agree. i think we need a break from healthcare topics.

 

I guess a better way to state my argument is that neither of these is some sort of unique topic area (we had our chance there with ag subsidies or central asia and blew it). It just seemed strange to me to refer to energy policy as some sort of shift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I seriously doubt they will change the so called supermajority rule. In 2005 a group thought they had the votes but a few dissenting republicans joined in the gang of 14 to stop eliminating those rules.
That was in regard to a very specific (and narrow) application of the rule. I think that such super-majority requirements are un-constitutional anyway, but that is a conversation for another day... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was in regard to a very specific (and narrow) application of the rule. I think that such super-majority requirements are un-constitutional anyway, but that is a conversation for another day... ;)

 

And look how angry that gang was and many of those that stopped it will be around. I'm just saying I can't see anyone gainning the seats necessary to overturn it. They're looking at 2 likely pickups at his point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't get me wrong, energy is my preferred topic in the final two...but how is it a "change in viewpoint?" It was the college topic 3 years ago and was the high school topic 10 years ago. I fail to see how that is a change in topic viewpoint...

this is why i love u...and this is why i didnt rly want energy 2 b the topic...but i do like it more than health care...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't get me wrong, energy is my preferred topic in the final two...but how is it a "change in viewpoint?" It was the college topic 3 years ago and was the high school topic 10 years ago. I fail to see how that is a change in topic viewpoint...

 

i could understand a topic from 3 years ago being recent, but 10? not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i could understand a topic from 3 years ago being recent, but 10? not so much.

something like energy sure there is changes and innovation but it is basically the same debate that they had 10 years ago with carbon taxes and all that shit...i mean the same causes of global warming my coach made my ass. coach learn 10 years ago hes gonna teach us and were gonna run it similar if

not the exact same way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
something like energy sure there is changes and innovation but it is basically the same debate that they had 10 years ago with carbon taxes and all that shit...i mean the same causes of global warming my coach made my ass. coach learn 10 years ago hes gonna teach us and were gonna run it similar if

not the exact same way

 

oh...i better understand that now. thanks.

but why would your coach want you to run your plans the exact same way? there may be better evidence to abide by, perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh...i better understand that now. thanks.

but why would your coach want you to run your plans the exact same way? there may be better evidence to abide by, perhaps?

 

I agree with you that the evidence has been updated, there is probably new tech, but the basic proposals still haven't really been adopted. The fact that it was the college topic three years ago means there really isn't that much of a research gap, either.

 

It's neither here nor there, it's still the better topic of the remaining two, but I really would have preferred the community taking advantage of less explored case areas like Central Asia or ag subsidies.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you that the evidence has been updated, there is probably new tech, but the basic proposals still haven't really been adopted. The fact that it was the college topic three years ago means there really isn't that much of a research gap, either.

 

It's neither here nor there, it's still the better topic of the remaining two, but I really would have preferred the community taking advantage of less explored case areas like Central Asia or ag subsidies.

 

good point. Central Asia sounds intresting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i want central asia cause i think it will be a good topic with a lot of lit on it
read the rest of the forum...central asia is out...the only 2 left are energy and health care

 

it looks like were gonna debate energy but w/e...its better than health care

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...