What is there to debate? Really? How does one find a way to take the "no" side of these two issues?

[Stinky The Clown]

Issue One: You can pay (outrageously) for your kids' to be insured as part of your (outrageously priced) family policy until they reach age 26.

Issue Two: You can't be dropped from your (outrageously profitable) insurer's roster if you get sick.

The repubicans want to have a debate about this shit. They want to overturn the law. Where does one even start to formulate an opposition to those to issues? Seriously? Where? On what basis?

[HopeHoops]

1. MONEY TALKS! The (outrageously profitable) insurance companies LOVE Republicans.

The only thing insurance companies REALLY want to insure is their own profit margin. Donations to Republicans are called "premiums".

[Orrex]

2. For them, it's the bottom line uber alles

If there are two options, one of which is a pure good and one of which is a pure evil (but which makes them some money), then they insist that we debate the options as if they're objectively equal and both equally beneficial.

[Thav]

3. Easy

#1: If the kids are forced to get individual policies of their own at 18, that's more profit for insurance companies.

#2: Dropping expensive policy holders means more profit for insurance companies.

Profits are the only thing that matter, anything that stands in the way is bad.

[drm604]

4. The no side...

Death Panels!
Waiting Lines!
Socialism!
Muslims! Immigrants! Kenyan Anti-Colonialism! Barack *HUSSEIN* Obama!

But you already knew that.
:hi:

[old mark]

5. There is nothing to "debate" - the GOP have no positions on anything at all.

They are anti-Obama, anti Democratic and other than that, they are trying anything that will get media attention and maybe a vote or two. There is absolutely zero substance to the republicans and their 'bagger pals.


mark