• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Stay focused. You're talking to me and not the liberal universe.

No matter how it is "lumped" there should be a way to pay for it clearly spelled out. Neither party has done this well.

And I'm all for doing away with duplicate efforts. That's why I support a single healthcare system and not piecemeal efforts.

And no, government only has minimal effect on everything, including the atmosphere. I've shown you historically and through studies that everything you think has a major effect really doesn't. The only way to have the effect you speak of is for the government to actually control production. That is not the case here in the US.

You want a single healthcare system for 50 sovereign states and 312000000 people? That is impossible and you know it.

You really are very naïve believing the govt. has minimal effect on the economy. not sure where you got your education or what you do but you are out of touch with reality. Higher taxes affect personal income and investment capital and higher costs of employment affect jobs. That is basic logic, common sense and reality.
 
You want a single healthcare system for 50 sovereign states and 312000000 people? That is impossible and you know it.

You really are very naïve believing the govt. has minimal effect on the economy. not sure where you got your education or what you do but you are out of touch with reality. Higher taxes affect personal income and investment capital and higher costs of employment affect jobs. That is basic logic, common sense and reality.

It's not impossible at all. And no, higher taxes have minimal effect. We're not talking 100%, or 75%, or 50% type tax increases. The numbers I've seen is 6%. Considering the money saved on healthcare, fir business by removing it from business, and no hidden fees paying for uninsured, it'd likely be a savings all around.
 
It's not impossible at all. And no, higher taxes have minimal effect. We're not talking 100%, or 75%, or 50% type tax increases. The numbers I've seen is 6%. Considering the money saved on healthcare, fir business by removing it from business, and no hidden fees paying for uninsured, it'd likely be a savings all around.

Since healthcare is an individual responsibility it is unlike SS where a fixed amount is being paid out. It is impossible for any bureaucratic Govt. to administer a national healthcare program. MA has taught that a state cannot even do it well. No one can govern what a person puts into their body or their living habit.

You really are naïve and gullible if you believe it is possible

As for taxes what matters is what the people's effective rate is not their tax rate. If there isn't much of an effect then why raise taxes at all? How does raising taxes benefit you?
 
Since healthcare is an individual responsibility it is unlike SS where a fixed amount is being paid out. It is impossible for any bureaucratic Govt. to administer a national healthcare program. MA has taught that a state cannot even do it well. No one can govern what a person puts into their body or their living habit.

You really are naïve and gullible if you believe it is possible

As for taxes what matters is what the people's effective rate is not their tax rate. If there isn't much of an effect then why raise taxes at all? How does raising taxes benefit you?

Im afraid factually they've effectively managed UHC around the world. So we know it can be done.

Nor are we talking about governing what people eat or drink. That's a strawman argument on your part.

Taxes pay for services. Healthcare is more like fire and police concerns. We use taxes to handle larger communal issues. It's always been that way.
 
Im afraid factually they've effectively managed UHC around the world. So we know it can be done.

Nor are we talking about governing what people eat or drink. That's a strawman argument on your part.

Taxes pay for services. Healthcare is more like fire and police concerns. We use taxes to handle larger communal issues. It's always been that way.

No country in the world has the freedom of choices we have along with the access to things many of which aren't good for us. This is the United States of America in case you forgot and it isn't like other countries. You want national healthcare move, because it isn't going to work here, never will. Healthcare is a personal responsibility something you and other liberals don't seem to understand. Pay for your own healthcare or send me a check direct to pay for mine. You prefer however having a bureaucrat do it for you
 
No country in the world has the freedom of choices we have along with the access to things many of which aren't good for us. This is the United States of America in case you forgot and it isn't like other countries. You want national healthcare move, because it isn't going to work here, never will. Healthcare is a personal responsibility something you and other liberals don't seem to understand. Pay for your own healthcare or send me a check direct to pay for mine. You prefer however having a bureaucrat do it for you

That is simply not true. You may want to do some more research.
 
That is simply not true. You may want to do some more research.

What simply is true is that you have never been right on any issue regarding liberal social programs and every prediction you have made regarding this President have been wrong. Why do you think you are right regarding national healthcare? There is no way that national healthcare will work in a country of 312 million with 50 sovereign states and all the individual freedoms the people in this country have.

Every liberal social program implemented cost more than intended, does less than intended, never solves a problem, and only creates more dependence on liberalism
 
What simply is true is that you have never been right on any issue regarding liberal social programs and every prediction you have made regarding this President have been wrong. Why do you think you are right regarding national healthcare? There is no way that national healthcare will work in a country of 312 million with 50 sovereign states and all the individual freedoms the people in this country have.

Every liberal social program implemented cost more than intended, does less than intended, never solves a problem, and only creates more dependence on liberalism

Ok, you're reducing this to name calling again. Sure sign you can't keep up. I appreciate your list, and could agree generally to man of the areas. The devil is in the details.
 
Ok, you're reducing this to name calling again. Sure sign you can't keep up. I appreciate your list, and could agree generally to man of the areas. The devil is in the details.

Yes, always have the problem keeping up with liberals who always ignore the actual results but remain loyal to failure. Too bad you only think with your heart and never use your brain when it comes to evaluating liberal social engineering.

Please tell me how a Federal Bureaucracy can manage a nationwide healthcare program when they cannot even control the federal budget and have created a 17 trillion dollar debt, yes both parties? The Federal Govt. has no business managing personal choice issues and has been a complete failure in their previous attempts.
 
Yes, always have the problem keeping up with liberals who always ignore the actual results but remain loyal to failure. Too bad you only think with your heart and never use your brain when it comes to evaluating liberal social engineering.

Please tell me how a Federal Bureaucracy can manage a nationwide healthcare program when they cannot even control the federal budget and have created a 17 trillion dollar debt, yes both parties? The Federal Govt. has no business managing personal choice issues and has been a complete failure in their previous attempts.

That's a fiction in your head.

And all they have to manage is payments, like an insurance company. It's just one insurer. Nothing more.
 
That's a fiction in your head.

And all they have to manage is payments, like an insurance company. It's just one insurer. Nothing more.

LOL, they cannot even track tax dollars so why do you think they could track payments for insurance premiums? Did you have this much faith in the govt. when Bush was in office? What happens if you are wrong and you will be wrong as logic and common sense show? The only fiction is in your world who believes we can have an efficient national healthcare program for 312 million Americans in 50 sovereign states administered by the Federal Govt. That my friend is true fiction
 
LOL, they cannot even track tax dollars so why do you think they could track payments for insurance premiums? Did you have this much faith in the govt. when Bush was in office? What happens if you are wrong and you will be wrong as logic and common sense show? The only fiction is in your world who believes we can have an efficient national healthcare program for 312 million Americans in 50 sovereign states administered by the Federal Govt. That my friend is true fiction

You are mistaken. It's done all around the world.
 
You are mistaken. It's done all around the world.

This isn't the rest of the world so continue to dream on. We have 50 sovereign states something that you don't seem to understand and over 312 million people. Name for me another country that has as effective of a healthcare program as we have and the freedom of choices that we have for 312 million people? You didn't answer the question, did you have as much faith in the Federal Govt. when Bush and Reagan were in office? You really seem to have a very poor understanding as to the role of the Federal Govt. which is why you have no problem with the 3.77 trillion dollar budget Obama presented and his unwillingness to cut any expenses. You ignore how much of the federal social engineering is already done in the states and thus is duplicated at the federal level.
 
This isn't the rest of the world so continue to dream on. We have 50 sovereign states something that you don't seem to understand and over 312 million people. Name for me another country that has as effective of a healthcare program as we have and the freedom of choices that we have for 312 million people? You didn't answer the question, did you have as much faith in the Federal Govt. when Bush and Reagan were in office? You really seem to have a very poor understanding as to the role of the Federal Govt. which is why you have no problem with the 3.77 trillion dollar budget Obama presented and his unwillingness to cut any expenses. You ignore how much of the federal social engineering is already done in the states and thus is duplicated at the federal level.

No, we're not that much different.

And I was the same no matter who was in office.
 
Conservative

Why do you think you are right regarding national healthcare? There is no way that national healthcare will work in a country of 312 million with 50 sovereign states and all the individual freedoms the people in this country have.

Every liberal social program implemented cost more than intended, does less than intended, never solves a problem, and only creates more dependence on liberalism.

Better tell that to the 50 million people collecting medicare.The last poll i seen was that Eighty percent rated of your cohorts had a favorable outlook for that dastardly gubmet insurance called Medicare.:2wave:
 
Better tell that to the 50 million people collecting medicare.The last poll i seen was that Eighty percent rated of your cohorts had a favorable outlook for that dastardly gubmet insurance called Medicare.:2wave:

If I didn't make the income I did, I would look forward for it too. If the government is going to offer me a deal to have a third party pay for my medical expenses, why not? Sounds like a sweet deal.
 
QUOTE AmazonTania

If I didn't make the income I did, I would look forward for it too.

I didn't know there was income limits on Medicare.Tell me about it.:2wave:

If the government is going to offer me a deal to have a third party pay for my medical expenses, why not? Sounds like a sweet deal
.

Why not? they're more efficient than private insurance.:thumbs:
 
I didn't know there was income limits on Medicare.Tell me about it.:2wave:

Higher income earners have to pay higher premiums for medicare. It's cheaper for me just to use private insurance.

.

Why not? they're more efficient than private insurance.:thumbs:

Since when do efficient business models have limited solvency?
 
Higher income earners have to pay higher premiums for medicare. It's cheaper for me just to use private insurance.

Private insurance companies only offer supplements to medicare.
 
Well, it's really not improving in anticipation to it either.

Not sure yet. After all, at this point, we only have the fear mongering to draw from. I know my health insurance had the smallest increase in years. What I read is that there are real differences, some places doing well and others not. But I rare seeing whining do much. I'd much prefer us moving this along and helping to improve it.
 
QUOTE AmazonTania

Higher income earners have to pay higher premiums for medicare. It's cheaper for me just to use private insurance.

Hhmm...You must be one of those, RARE seniors with no pre-existing conditions Eh?

<Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, workers earning more than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for joint filers) must pay higher Medicare hospital insurance (HI) taxes beginning in 2013. The new tax is 2.35% (an increase of 0.9%) of applicable wages above those thresholds, so a worker earning $300,000 a year will pay HI taxes of 1.45% on $200,000 plus 2.35% on $100,000. There is no change to the employer’s share of the HI tax.>


High-Income Individuals to Pay Higher Medicare Taxes Starting in 2013 | Towers Watson - Towers Watson

Look on the positive side of BOCARE....people with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied health insurance as of 2014.So if you have a pre-existing condition more than likely your " private insurance "will not cost you more.In essence, the cost is spread around.Smacks of socialism eh? :2wave:
 
Not sure yet. After all, at this point, we only have the fear mongering to draw from. I know my health insurance had the smallest increase in years. What I read is that there are real differences, some places doing well and others not. But I rare seeing whining do much. I'd much prefer us moving this along and helping to improve it.

If you don't include insurance, rates are probably not as bad, but Health Cost are the highest they've ever been. If there is any fear mongering, it's mostly a market sentiment. Non Supervisory hours are down. Average employee hours are down. Full-Time employment is down. Not exactly a welcoming response for something which is suppose to help the bottom line.
 
If you don't include insurance, rates are probably not as bad, but Health Cost are the highest they've ever been. If there is any fear mongering, it's mostly a market sentiment. Non Supervisory hours are down. Average employee hours are down. Full-Time employment is down. Not exactly a welcoming response for something which is suppose to help the bottom line.

Again, trends already in place before reform. Why would you believe reform is the cause? Would other economic factors be more likely, just as they were before reform?
 
Back
Top Bottom