Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

23
21
Hell no! Yup.
Debate Score:44
Arguments:32
Total Votes:46
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Hell no! (18)
 
 Yup. (14)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(39882) pic



The GOP was unsuccessful at repealing Obama Care. Is it a done deal?

Hell no!

Side Score: 23
VS.

Yup.

Side Score: 21

It's never over until the fat lady sings and the supreme court has not weighed in yet ;)

Side: Hell no!
1 point

It's possible that some items of the act, might be repealed. But I very much doubt the entirety of the Healthcare act would get repealed so soon after it was passed. Really I think it would be unwise to pursue further action, until the general populace is more knowledgeable of the whole thing.

Side: Hell no!

I think the general populace understands that the framers of the constitutions wanted limited governmental powers. Maily because human nature. I think that most people would agree that many (if not most) of the politicians are corrupt. We are witnessing in Egypt (and elsewhere) what happens to countries with political figures that have a lot of power. I don't want to give our politicians any more power than they already have. I don't want this country to end up like Egypt.

Well....., the pyramids are kinda cool ;)

Side: Hell no!

I'll leave it to the supreme court to decide ; )

Side: Hell no!
1 point

I don't really care if they do it or not.

It would be better if they eventually do it, though. If they want it repealed, they'll get it repealed.

It just sucks that so many people have lost coverage for certain things just because the government doesn't know how to properly write a Bill. They didn't think that insurance companies would stop coverage for children and diseases that can be pre-existing just because the government makes it way to risky and expensive to maintain? pfft.

Side: Hell no!
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

It just sucks that so many people have lost coverage for certain things just because the government doesn't know how to properly write a Bill. They didn't think that insurance companies would stop coverage for children and diseases that can be pre-existing just because the government makes it way to risky and expensive to maintain? pfft.

The reason the healthcare bill is imperfect is that there are so many vested interests in our government. Insurance is big business, and big corporations do not want to be mandated to provide their employees with healthcare. We were lucky to get anything at all.

Side: Yup.

There are still debates going on about this, and the supreme court has yet to make a ruling.

There are certain things that are good about the bill, such as not being denied coverage because of "pre existing conditions" and kids being able to stay on their parents coverage until they are 26, but the idea of government controlled health care just doesn't appeal to me.

Since the government would control the health care industry, there would be no competition and no incentive to do well, so people would have healthcare that would be set at sub standards.

I think instead of getting rid of this healthcare bill, it should instead be reformed.

Side: Hell no!
3 points

This part:

Late Monday afternoon in Pensacola, Fla., U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson delivered the second major judgment that the centerpiece of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—the "individual mandate" that forces Americans to buy health insurance whether or not they want it—is unconstitutional.

Has bothered me for a while because if he is going to argue that it is unconstitutional to force people to buy insurance, that same type of reasoning must apply towards every other social institution. In other words, suddenly our public schools, roads, water, welfare, etc. become unconstitutional because they force people to buy into these services even if they do not use them.

Congratulations conservative pundits for finding any excuse to not let the issue rest. No matter what can of worms is opened by your pushing, all because you have insurance interests weighing on you to kill a bill for them.

Side: Yup.
3 points

Has bothered me for a while because if he is going to argue that it is unconstitutional to force people to buy insurance, that same type of reasoning must apply towards every other social institution.

If government can force people to buy insurance, why stop there? This is a slippery slope. Maybe, you should lobby to force people buy to consume vegetables, fruits, blue cars built by Government Motors and pink toilet seats.

In other words, suddenly our public schools, roads, water, welfare, etc. become unconstitutional because they force people to buy into these services even if they do not use them.

Actually, these are applied to the constitution under the taxing and spending clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 whereas buying insurance is being debated under the Commerce Clause. Public schools, roads, water and welfare are simply taxation whereas forcing people to buy a good is not, that is regulating commerce. GET IT STRAIGHT!!!

Side: Hell no!
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

If government can force people to buy insurance, why stop there? This is a slippery slope. Maybe, you should lobby to force people buy to consume vegetables, fruits, blue cars built by Government Motors and pink toilet seats.

Next thing you know we'll be forced to pay for public education, government housing projects, NASA, roads, water, forestry service and parks, the food and drug administration, scientific research, welfare, unemployment, state hospitals and military.

Actually, these are applied to the constitution under the taxing and spending clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 whereas buying insurance is being debated under the Commerce Clause.

In other words, these are all major institutions which we happen to be used to. The health care act is new, and big, so let's find some special law to try and take it down.

Public schools, roads, water and welfare are simply taxation whereas forcing people to buy a good is not, that is regulating commerce. GET IT STRAIGHT!!!

Your taxes pay for a good. Paying taxes for public school, for example, provides that good to other people and yourself. You are being forced to pay for a good that you may or may not be using on yourself. The only difference is that one is mediated through taxes and the other is a direct purchase that you must make.

Side: Yup.
1 point

Liberals don't understand the Constitution. Neither do Conservatives, but it seems that Liberals are making such big decisions now a days. Hopefully, we'll have another balance of power where there will be NO change... inert Republicans and Democrats? Perfect :)

Side: Hell no!

Congratulations liberal pundits for finding any excuse to not let the status quo rest. No matter what can of worms is opened by your pushing, all because you wanted everyone else to pay for your socialized health care ;)

Side: Hell no!
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
1 point

Conservative pundits?

You mean US District Court Judges... they're not pundits.

Side: Hell no!
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

Conservative pundits?

You mean US District Court Judges... they're not pundits.

No, I mean conservative pundits. Do you not watch or read the conservative news? Every slimy, dishonest tactic has been tried to kill the Health bill, from accusing it of being socialism, to spreading a lie about death panels, to blowing the costs out of proportion, to calling it a rationing of care, to obstructing its passage in the senate even though a majority approved it, to now trying to find it unconstitutional using a very broad and weak legal argument.

I'm surprised you're not angry. You told me that you dislike broad laws. Well, that's what the judge used here. Such a broad understanding of our constitution that he may as well rule public schools illegal.

Side: Yup.
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

Admittedly, I don't like the idea of being forced to buy into health insurance, mostly because I am exceptionally healthy. I also greatly recognize the importance of public education, and would never dream of cutting funding to it (or ending it all together). I really don't like the idea of private schools, because they give the rich greater educational opportunities.

A classic example of how the 'monetary elite' (my term) you the system to keep themselves above everybody else. Despite the fact that by most worldly standards I would be considered Rich, at least in comparison to most people on earth. I know capitalism doesn't work, nor does Communism. You might have seen my rant on the numerous flaws of the "Free Market" in the discussion with PRAYERFAILS. If only I could discover some better system, I might have to dedicate my education and specialized knowledge to propose of such a system.

Anyway I'm starting to babble...these are just my thoughts.

Side: Hell no!
1 point

Admittedly, I don't like the idea of being forced to buy into health insurance, mostly because I am exceptionally healthy. I also greatly recognize the importance of public education, and would never dream of cutting funding to it (or ending it all together). I really don't like the idea of private schools, because they give the rich greater educational opportunities.

I don't either, but I see it as a rational cost for the system, just like public schools too.

I'm particularly worried about private education because it also is not bound by our laws on secularism, meaning that private schools can choose to be legal indoctrination camps for whatever religion happens to be popular at the time.

You might have seen my rant on the numerous flaws of the "Free Market" in the discussion with PRAYERFAILS. If only I could discover some better system, I might have to dedicate my education and specialized knowledge to propose of such a system.

Yes, I just read that. You know you cannot make prayerfails admit a flaw in the free market, because in his mind (like apparently most full-blooded libertarians) the only way the market fails is if it doesn't accumulate wealth in the hands of the few. His premise on it working isn't based on it creating a socially healthy society and he is the first one to proudly announce this selfishness.

Side: Yup.

It is now 2015 and the Supreme Court again has upheld ObamaCare so it is a done deal for the GOP.

Side: Yup.

God save us ;)

Side: Yup.
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Are you dumber than a box of rocks? A debate that is 4 years old about how the Republicans won't stop fighting Obamacare isn't an indicator that it isn't over for them?

Side: Hell no!