• 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!

Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system[W:1539]

So you say that Bush is not responsible for the crash of 2008. It is out there. Obama has a terrible recovery after less than 5 years and he is not be given the last 3 + years in your mind or a non-sabotaging GOP from the beginning. Check. And shove your civics class.

Less than 5 years? Obama said he had the answers and people like you believed him. We had a worse recession in 81-82 and were out of it in 2 due to great leadership, a concept you don't seem to understand. The recession of December 2007-2009 happened under Bush and the poor recovery happened under Obama thus both are on their record.
 
Never be honest to a sleazy conservative who looks in one direction for blame.

Bye, NIMBY, you aren't worth th effort, totally intellectually dishonest and a typical Obamabot.
 
Therefore Bush had only 7 budgets in 8 years and gets to dodge the last one since McCain hit the pause button. Got it. I get your thinking that Obama should have to have five deficits in 4 years. Now, back to that private-sector job bar graph.

McCain didn't prevent the 2009 budget, the Congress under Democrat control did as the Democrats were more interested in regaining the WH than doing their job. You really need a civics class. You are a perfect example of an Obamabot.
 
Noone should have been able to cause this disaster. It lies with the GOP House, the worst in modern times with the greatest filibusters in our history. We get it.

LOL, The House doesn't have a filibuster rule so no you don't get it at all but we do. You are a typical Obama supporter
 
LOL, The House doesn't have a filibuster rule so no you don't get it at all but we do. You are a typical Obama supporter

No, no, no Conservative, he's a "Centrist" (cue the chorus of angels) because he probably voted for Eisenhower once, no matter that every President, every Senator, every Congressman, every local official, every dog catcher since under his vote has had a (D) next to their name on the ballot. He considers himself a centrist because he thinks that liberal progressive morays are mainstream, and therefore, since the delusion of everyone thinking like him is so strong, he proclaims centrism.
 
Just as a matter of fact, a centrist could support Obama. Could support any specific action. Centrist doesn't mean I hate everyone or no one. It means overall an approach or believe that is mostly in the middle. Some who is anti abortion but pro UHC might well be a centrist.
 
Just as a matter of fact, a centrist could support Obama. Could support any specific action. Centrist doesn't mean I hate everyone or no one. It means overall an approach or believe that is mostly in the middle. Some who is anti abortion but pro UHC might well be a centrist.

Wrong, a true centrist would look at the record and make a judgment according and since Obama has a leftwing record or no record at all, no centrist could ever vote for Obama. He is a far left ideologue and evidenced by his voting record and performance.
 
On reason I don;t much mind the eavesdropping is that we should give people rope until they start talking about blowing stuff up or shooting people dead. My understanding is that the Fort Hood nut, an American born Citizen, was talking crazy stuff long before he went off. I'm not sure about the brothers Tsanaev. If there were warning signs before the Marathon bombing, I am not aware of them. Either way, if NSA wants to read my mail sniffing for bomb plots, of I'm keeping in touch with crazies in Yemen or speaking with others who are, then I'm cool with it.
We agree at least partly on that. Political correctness kept the army from stopping Hassan from his rampage, and the excuse (a poor one, at that) for the Tsarnaev brothers was that the name was misspelled when they re-entered the country. Metadata collection, by itself, is analogous to the cop walking a beat in a public area: he's not investigating any crime, he is looking for suspicious behavior. In either case there is the possibility of abuse as evidenced by the recent ruling in NYC about stop and frisk, and public acceptance of the surveillance depends a great deal on public trust in the officials collecting the data. Unfortunately, the Obama scandals have become so widespread that it is difficult to trust any federal agency anymore.
 
Noone should have been able to cause this disaster. It lies with the GOP House, the worst in modern times with the greatest filibusters in our history. We get it.

The disaster was caused by the Pelosi House and the Reid Senate. Pelosi is gone, which is progress, but Reid is still there and (along with Obama) the greatest obstacle to a full economic recovery.
 
Wrong, a true centrist would look at the record and make a judgment according and since Obama has a leftwing record or no record at all, no centrist could ever vote for Obama. He is a far left ideologue and evidenced by his voting record and performance.

Who says he hasn't? Maybe he understands better than you do?
 
Who says he hasn't? Maybe he understands better than you do?

Because the definition of Centrist is someone who doesn't support the shifting of this country to either the left or the right and it is obvious to anyone that Obama's agenda is to transform America strongly to the left as evidenced by his economic policies and his rhetoric promoting social justice and demonizing the producers in this country.
 
That may be, because we have a lot of low information voters and Thoreau was correct when he observed that most men have the souls of slaves. If they stopped to think, however, they might realize that anyone who works pays a lot of attention to the interests of whoever signs the paycheck. If I need medical care, I prefer that the providers know that they are responsible to me rather than some bureaucrat with no interest in my health.

But insurance companies aren't interested in your health either, they are interested in maximising profits. Fact is, the US system doesn't come out well when compared to single payer systems.
 
Wrong, a true centrist would look at the record and make a judgment according and since Obama has a leftwing record or no record at all, no centrist could ever vote for Obama. He is a far left ideologue and evidenced by his voting record and performance.

Ha! 99% of Europeans/Canadians/Australians would laugh at the idea of Obama being far left.
 
But insurance companies aren't interested in your health either, they are interested in maximising profits. Fact is, the US system doesn't come out well when compared to single payer systems.

Socialists are only interested in one thing, spending someone else's money and we don't have a lot of it to spend any more. Too many people compare the U.S. to other countries when it comes to healthcare and there is no proof that the comparison items are equal in anyway. The U.S. is an open society whereas most other countries have a controlled media thus a controlled message. Sorry but access doesn't guarantee service or quality and in fact will hurt service and quality by throwing more people into the system along with forcing people who have no interest in having healthcare into the system.

There isn't a successful socialist country in the world unless you define success by govt. control and dictation of services to the public. High debt, high unemployment, long wait times, stagnant economic growth plague every socialist country in the world. Why would you want that record here
 
Ha! 99% of Europeans/Canadians/Australians would laugh at the idea of Obama being far left.


Your opinion noted but doubt you know 99% of Europeans/Canadians/Australians. The Obama record is far left, high unemployment, low economic growth, high debt, and high dependence govt. programs.
 
Socialists are only interested in one thing, spending someone else's money and we don't have a lot of it to spend any more. Too many people compare the U.S. to other countries when it comes to healthcare and there is no proof that the comparison items are equal in anyway. The U.S. is an open society whereas most other countries have a controlled media thus a controlled message. Sorry but access doesn't guarantee service or quality and in fact will hurt service and quality by throwing more people into the system along with forcing people who have no interest in having healthcare into the system.

There isn't a successful socialist country in the world unless you define success by govt. control and dictation of services to the public. High debt, high unemployment, long wait times, stagnant economic growth plague every socialist country in the world. Why would you want that record here

most Western developed nations have a free media. I really don't understand why you are opposed to single payer. You would pay less for health coverage, it wouldn't be any worse, and everyone would be covered.
 
most Western developed nations have a free media. I really don't understand why you are opposed to single payer. You would pay less for health coverage, it wouldn't be any worse, and everyone would be covered.

Because a single payer system everywhere in the world drives up costs due to the limited services available which forces people into ER thus overcrowding. Medicare is trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and nothing the govt. does is efficient, cost effective, and successful in doing anything but buying votes.

Why would anyone support another entitlement program fun by a govt. with a 17 trillion dollar debt?
 
Because unlike you and others I see the disadvantages of a single payer system as outlined in the following:

Health Care Quality: Would It Survive a Single-Payer System?

About the Journal:

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in major academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed[45] nor the Web of Science.[46] The U.S. National Library of Medicine declined repeated requests from AAPS to index the journal, citing unspecified concerns.[1] Articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued a number of non-mainstream or scientifically discredited claims,[1] including:
that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern;[47]
that HIV does not cause AIDS;[48][49]
that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[50]
A series of articles by pro-life authors published in the journal argued for a link between abortion and breast cancer.[51][52] Such a link has been rejected by the scientific community, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[53] the American Cancer Society,[54] and the World Health Organization,[55] among other major medical bodies.[56]
A 2003 paper published in the journal, claiming that vaccination was harmful, was criticized for poor methodology, lack of scientific rigor, and outright errors by the World Health Organization[57] and the American Academy of Pediatrics.[58] A National Public Radio piece mentioned inaccurate information published in the Journal and said: "The journal itself is not considered a leading publication, as it's put out by an advocacy group that opposes most government involvement in medical care."[59]
The Journal has also published articles advocating politically and socially conservative policy positions[citation needed], including:
that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional;[60]
that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution;[61]
that "anchor babies" are valuable to undocumented immigrants, particularly if the babies are disabled.[1]
Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.[62] An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News described JPandS as a "purveyor of utter nonsense."[63] Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]" and "is barely credible as an independent forum."[64]
Leprosy error[edit source | editbeta]
In a 2005 article published in the Journal, Madeleine Cosman argued that illegal immigrants were carriers of disease, and that immigrants and "anchor babies" were launching a "stealthy assault on [American] medicine."[65] In the article, Cosman claimed that "Suddenly, in the past 3 years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy" because of illegal aliens.[65] The journal's leprosy claim was cited and repeated by Lou Dobbs as evidence of the dangers of illegal immigration.[59][66]
However, publicly available statistics show that the 7,000 cases of leprosy occurred during the past 30 years, not the past three as Cosman claimed.[67] James L. Krahenbuhl, director of the U.S. government's leprosy program, stated that there had been no significant increase in leprosy cases, and that "It [leprosy] is not a public health problem—that’s the bottom line."[66] National Public Radio reported that the Journal article "had footnotes that did not readily support allegations linking a recent rise in leprosy rates to illegal immigrants."[59] The article's erroneous leprosy claim was pointed out by 60 Minutes,[68] National Public Radio,[59] and the New York Times[66] but has not been corrected by the Journal.[citation needed]

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
About the Journal:

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in major academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed[45] nor the Web of Science.[46] The U.S. National Library of Medicine declined repeated requests from AAPS to index the journal, citing unspecified concerns.[1] Articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued a number of non-mainstream or scientifically discredited claims,[1] including:
that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern;[47]
that HIV does not cause AIDS;[48][49]
that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[50]
A series of articles by pro-life authors published in the journal argued for a link between abortion and breast cancer.[51][52] Such a link has been rejected by the scientific community, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[53] the American Cancer Society,[54] and the World Health Organization,[55] among other major medical bodies.[56]
A 2003 paper published in the journal, claiming that vaccination was harmful, was criticized for poor methodology, lack of scientific rigor, and outright errors by the World Health Organization[57] and the American Academy of Pediatrics.[58] A National Public Radio piece mentioned inaccurate information published in the Journal and said: "The journal itself is not considered a leading publication, as it's put out by an advocacy group that opposes most government involvement in medical care."[59]
The Journal has also published articles advocating politically and socially conservative policy positions[citation needed], including:
that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional;[60]
that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution;[61]
that "anchor babies" are valuable to undocumented immigrants, particularly if the babies are disabled.[1]
Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.[62] An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News described JPandS as a "purveyor of utter nonsense."[63] Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]" and "is barely credible as an independent forum."[64]
Leprosy error[edit source | editbeta]
In a 2005 article published in the Journal, Madeleine Cosman argued that illegal immigrants were carriers of disease, and that immigrants and "anchor babies" were launching a "stealthy assault on [American] medicine."[65] In the article, Cosman claimed that "Suddenly, in the past 3 years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy" because of illegal aliens.[65] The journal's leprosy claim was cited and repeated by Lou Dobbs as evidence of the dangers of illegal immigration.[59][66]
However, publicly available statistics show that the 7,000 cases of leprosy occurred during the past 30 years, not the past three as Cosman claimed.[67] James L. Krahenbuhl, director of the U.S. government's leprosy program, stated that there had been no significant increase in leprosy cases, and that "It [leprosy] is not a public health problem—that’s the bottom line."[66] National Public Radio reported that the Journal article "had footnotes that did not readily support allegations linking a recent rise in leprosy rates to illegal immigrants."[59] The article's erroneous leprosy claim was pointed out by 60 Minutes,[68] National Public Radio,[59] and the New York Times[66] but has not been corrected by the Journal.[citation needed]

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does any of that have to do with the historical results of single payer systems like Medicare and SS or the historical data on wait times in countries that have a single payer healthcare system? Most liberal social programs sound good but fail miserably, costing more than intended and doing less than intended unless you believe access is more important than service or quality.
 
About the Journal:

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in major academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed[45] nor the Web of Science.[46] The U.S. National Library of Medicine declined repeated requests from AAPS to index the journal, citing unspecified concerns.[1] Articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued a number of non-mainstream or scientifically discredited claims,[1] including:
that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern;[47]
that HIV does not cause AIDS;[48][49]
that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[50]
A series of articles by pro-life authors published in the journal argued for a link between abortion and breast cancer.[51][52] Such a link has been rejected by the scientific community, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[53] the American Cancer Society,[54] and the World Health Organization,[55] among other major medical bodies.[56]
A 2003 paper published in the journal, claiming that vaccination was harmful, was criticized for poor methodology, lack of scientific rigor, and outright errors by the World Health Organization[57] and the American Academy of Pediatrics.[58] A National Public Radio piece mentioned inaccurate information published in the Journal and said: "The journal itself is not considered a leading publication, as it's put out by an advocacy group that opposes most government involvement in medical care."[59]
The Journal has also published articles advocating politically and socially conservative policy positions[citation needed], including:
that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional;[60]
that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution;[61]
that "anchor babies" are valuable to undocumented immigrants, particularly if the babies are disabled.[1]
Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.[62] An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News described JPandS as a "purveyor of utter nonsense."[63] Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]" and "is barely credible as an independent forum."[64]
Leprosy error[edit source | editbeta]
In a 2005 article published in the Journal, Madeleine Cosman argued that illegal immigrants were carriers of disease, and that immigrants and "anchor babies" were launching a "stealthy assault on [American] medicine."[65] In the article, Cosman claimed that "Suddenly, in the past 3 years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy" because of illegal aliens.[65] The journal's leprosy claim was cited and repeated by Lou Dobbs as evidence of the dangers of illegal immigration.[59][66]
However, publicly available statistics show that the 7,000 cases of leprosy occurred during the past 30 years, not the past three as Cosman claimed.[67] James L. Krahenbuhl, director of the U.S. government's leprosy program, stated that there had been no significant increase in leprosy cases, and that "It [leprosy] is not a public health problem—that’s the bottom line."[66] National Public Radio reported that the Journal article "had footnotes that did not readily support allegations linking a recent rise in leprosy rates to illegal immigrants."[59] The article's erroneous leprosy claim was pointed out by 60 Minutes,[68] National Public Radio,[59] and the New York Times[66] but has not been corrected by the Journal.[citation needed]

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So wait a minute Winston...Let me get this straight...The Journal is dismissed, mocked, and discredited by strongly liberal outlets, and Wiki, a source that is open to manipulation from anyone with an agenda posts it as fact so it must be? Is that your stance?

If I tried that, liberals would be all over me attacking my credibility...So, explain why I should trust Wiki on this other than to see that liberals hate the Journal?
 
What does any of that have to do with the historical results of single payer systems like Medicare and SS or the historical data on wait times in countries that have a single payer healthcare system? Most liberal social programs sound good but fail miserably, costing more than intended and doing less than intended unless you believe access is more important than service or quality.

I checked into your source to see if it was even worth considering. It obviously in't.
 
I checked into your source to see if it was even worth considering. It obviously in't.

My source is the U.S. Treasury that shows Medicare and SS unfunded in the amount of trillions. My source is Canadian and British Heathcare publications showing wait times. My source is the Boston Globe that shows higher costs, higher wait times, and massive increases in ER usage.

You seem to have no problem giving a govt. that has amassed a 17 trillion dollar debt, never implemented a social program that cost what it was supposed to cost another entitlement program which does nothing but give them greater control and more money to spend. If you are wrong we are screwed and history says you are wrong.
 
My source is the U.S. Treasury that shows Medicare and SS unfunded in the amount of trillions. My source is Canadian and British Heathcare publications showing wait times. My source is the Boston Globe that shows higher costs, higher wait times, and massive increases in ER usage.

You seem to have no problem giving a govt. that has amassed a 17 trillion dollar debt, never implemented a social program that cost what it was supposed to cost another entitlement program which does nothing but give them greater control and more money to spend. If you are wrong we are screwed and history says you are wrong.

Then why do you post this link:

Because unlike you and others I see the disadvantages of a single payer system as outlined in the following:

Health Care Quality: Would It Survive a Single-Payer System?
 
Back
Top Bottom