• 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]

Not everything but a significant portion including higher costs of Drug R&D, Malpractice insurance, govt. regulations preventing competition or insurance companies crossing state lines but let's not overlook personal behavior and why we reward bad behavior with more money thrown at the problem. Obamacare is the first step to single payer and single payer in a country of 312 million people with diverse population, different state cost of living, different state personal behavior doesn't solve the problem at all, just hides it in another govt. entitlement program that gives politicians more power. Medicare and SS are single payer and are trillions in unfunded liabilities. Creating a single payer system doesn't do anything but give the politicians more money to spend

Instead of answering my question, you just regurgitated GOP catchphrases. "Unfunded liability" is my favorite. Giant red flag that the person in question has no idea what they're talking about.
 
Instead of answering my question, you just regurgitated GOP catchphrases. "Unfunded liability" is my favorite. Giant red flag that the person in question has no idea what they're talking about.

No, I provided you with the costs of healthcare and I have in the past provided you the proof from the Treasury Dept of the unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare, both single payer systems and both supposedly self funded. I wonder what it is about "undisclosed" that creates this kind of loyalty to a massive central govt. and more entitlement spending? Single payer always sounds good to someone who doesn't understand history or the reality of the govt. we have. More money just funds more entitlement programs and creates more dependence. Is that what you really want and how does that benefit you?
 
No, I provided you with the costs of healthcare and I have in the past provided you the proof from the Treasury Dept of the unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare, both single payer systems and both supposedly self funded. I wonder what it is about "undisclosed" that creates this kind of loyalty to a massive central govt. and more entitlement spending? Single payer always sounds good to someone who doesn't understand history or the reality of the govt. we have. More money just funds more entitlement programs and creates more dependence. Is that what you really want and how does that benefit you?

UHC systems work better and cheaper in every single country that adopts them. Maybe you think America is uniquely incompetent, but I don't.
 
UHC systems work better and cheaper in every single country that adopts them. Maybe you think America is uniquely incompetent, but I don't.

Nah he just hates the US Government and the opportunities available here.
 
1.Obama is a progressive, and 2.an extreme ideologue, and 3.a liar, which is worse.

1. No. He's a Centrist who leans Right on National security and financial matters, leans Left on cultural issues.
2. Hardly. O is a pragmatist.
3. Well, show me a president not named Jimmy Carter who wasn't.
 
You were asked a direct question, and this is textbook deflection, and obfuscation. Now answer the question.

J, I've answered every question directly. So, I think you're just following him and not really reading the entire thread.
 
UHC systems work better and cheaper in every single country that adopts them. Maybe you think America is uniquely incompetent, but I don't.

This isn't the same country as others in the world. There aren't 312 million people in those countries living in 50 diverse states nor do those countries have the govt. regulations and administration requirements that this one has which you ignore. I wish I could figure out why you want this country to be so much like Europe and what makes you so gullible and ignorant of history?

How does UHC benefit you and your family and how do you know since you want to ignore the cost breakdown that I provided you? Do you think that European countries have all those costs?
 
Nah he just hates the US Government and the opportunities available here.

Typical baiting and lack of reality. You think our opportunities come from the Govt? Did you start your business because of the govt? Our govt. is responsible for one thing, keeping us safe and providing equal opportunity. You want to ignore history and the actual results of a 3.77 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and the dependence it is creating. Guess that is ok with you now that you have made yours so it is ok to destroy the economic principles that allowed you to be successful.
 
You have never answered the question so here it is again

Tell me why exactly we need Obamacare and how adding 14-30 million new insurance covered people is going to lower costs, improve access, and quality?


This has been answered a dozen times before. More insured by definition means more access. One is the other. We've also covered using other health professionals than just doctors. I've told you this and give you links many times. I've also shown how the law encourages more doctors. The AMA which currently holds the number back, will loosen to meet the need.

So you have been answered yet again.
 
This has been answered a dozen times before. More insured by definition means more access. One is the other. We've also covered using other health professionals than just doctors. I've told you this and give you links many times. I've also shown how the law encourages more doctors. The AMA which currently holds the number back, will loosen to meet the need.

So you have been answered yet again.

How does access improve quality and service? Do you understand how incentive works? Where is the incentive to become a doctor where your income is controlled by the Federal Govt? Why are hospitals and doctors dropping out of Medicare. You live in a dream world that doesn't exist.
 
How does access improve quality and service? Do you understand how incentive works? Where is the incentive to become a doctor where your income is controlled by the Federal Govt? Why are hospitals and doctors dropping out of Medicare. You live in a dream world that doesn't exist.

Again, I've answered this before as well. A person getting no care and gets adequate care has improved care and has improved service. And as everyone is still making money, and based on volume as it always has been, there is still the same incentives as always. You truly don't understand how this works.

And yes some are dropping out. Some will always prefer to work for the wealthy. This is true in all professions. But there are still doctors who take Medicare, and will likely be more in the future.

I'm not sure how many times you guys want me repeating things, but I do have a limit. I expect you to remember this.
 
No, it isn't. It's just easier for you to lie on the Internet. But anyone reading these threads if honest knows I have. I have many times.

No, it isn't a lie, history shows it isn't a lie, what makes people like you so gullible and always believing in theory while ignoring reality. There is nothing in this program that improves quality and service, not one thing. You live in a dream world. Transformation of this country into a European economic system will create the new normal of high debt, high unemployment, low economic growth, and massive dependence on the govt. where govt. spending is the largest component of GDP
 
Typical baiting and lack of reality.

It is all you ever talk about.
You think our opportunities come from the Govt?

I think government plays a very important role from infrastructure to the health of the nation to protecting fair business practices and more..
 
Again, I've answered this before as well. A person getting no care and gets adequate care has improved care and has improved service. And as everyone is still making money, and based on volume as it always has been, there is still the same incentives as always. You truly don't understand how this works.

And yes some are dropping out. Some will always prefer to work for the wealthy. This is true in all professions. But there are still doctors who take Medicare, and will likely be more in the future.

I'm not sure how many times you guys want me repeating things, but I do have a limit. I expect you to remember this.

And older people which is part of our current population changes has less access because there are more people in the system creating greater stress on the current doctors in the system. Older people need more medical care and it isn't going to be available. Yours is theory and denies reality. I gave you the costs of Healthcare but here it is again.

http://www.awhp-online.com/issues/AWHP_RisingHealthCareCosts_7-26-04.pdf

Your argument is all about access but doesn't address costs and service.
 
It is all you ever talk about.


I think government plays a very important role from infrastructure to the health of the nation to protecting fair business practices and more..

What role did the Federal Govt. play in the creation of your business other than providing you the freedom to start your own business?
 
I hope so. We're the only industrial country in the world that doesn't guarantee a minimum of health care to its citizens. It's shameful, inefficient, and cruel. It means that if you have enough money, you get to live. If you don't, you die. No civilized country would do that to its citizens. Even Mexico provides health care, and it doesn't seem to care much for its citizens, but apparently recognizes that people need treatment. It also saves money in the long run, since a healthier citizenry costs less, and they also are freer to focus on work and education.
 
No, it isn't a lie, history shows it isn't a lie, what makes people like you so gullible and always believing in theory while ignoring reality. There is nothing in this program that improves quality and service, not one thing. You live in a dream world. Transformation of this country into a European economic system will create the new normal of high debt, high unemployment, low economic growth, and massive dependence on the govt. where govt. spending is the largest component of GDP

You want the law to provide quality? You don't know anything about quality.

But I have explained exactly how it works. And if you examine their debt, other things are the main driver of that debt. Much like here, predatory lending practices led to the collapse. But be that as it may, they spend less, and with a two tiered system of UHC, we could lower costs and improve access, which does improve over all quality.
 
What role did the Federal Govt. play in the creation of your business other than providing you the freedom to start your own business?

Copyright law and the enforcement of it to name just one.
 
And older people which is part of our current population changes has less access because there are more people in the system creating greater stress on the current doctors in the system. Older people need more medical care and it isn't going to be available. Yours is theory and denies reality. I gave you the costs of Healthcare but here it is again.

http://www.awhp-online.com/issues/AWHP_RisingHealthCareCosts_7-26-04.pdf

Your argument is all about access but doesn't address costs and service.

You really should read the things you post:

What Can Legislators Do to Help Control Rising Health Care Costs?
Together we can make a difference...
• Assure full funding of state government programs
• Carefully evaluate requests for additional health care mandates
• Advocate for regulatory simplification efforts
• Evaluate the cumulative effect of additional regulation prior to implementation
• Support reasonable limits on non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits


So, they are arguing that what is needed is more government. And what thy advocate for would be handled by going to a single payer UHC system. So, you're a funny fellow. :lamo
 
...actually the general welfare clause is pretty board. This notion that the only function of the US government is only to provide for the common defence is amusing.

I never said only. And the general welfare clause is not a power, its a limitation on taxation and spending:

Power - The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
Purpose - to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

People who opposed the constitution specifically made the argument that general welfare was too broad, and the writers argued that it wasn't:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?
-Madison
 
I hope so. We're the only industrial country in the world that doesn't guarantee a minimum of health care to its citizens. It's shameful, inefficient, and cruel. It means that if you have enough money, you get to live. If you don't, you die. No civilized country would do that to its citizens. Even Mexico provides health care, and it doesn't seem to care much for its citizens, but apparently recognizes that people need treatment. It also saves money in the long run, since a healthier citizenry costs less, and they also are freer to focus on work and education.

What exactly does "guarantee a minimum of health care" mean? We require emergency care be given regardless of ability to pay - does that not "guarantee a minimum of health care"? Certainly that health care will not be "free" to all citizens, it will be free to some and yet paid for by others. We all need food, clothing and shelter too - should those "essential" goods/services be "guaranteed" to citizens as well? It all sounds so wonderful and "fair" until you look at the details. Federal income taxation in the US mandates that the top 10% of the taxapyers pay 71% of the total tax bill. Taxation and gov't guarantees of goods/services are always seen as a good deal for those that will personally get more value in gov't goods/services than they must pay for via taxation.

Those "healthy" Mexicans:
Mexico, Now More Obese Than US, Struggles To Afford Healthy Foods

Those "happy" Mexicans:
Most Mexicans See Better Life in U.S. – One-In-Three Would Migrate | Pew Global Attitudes Project
 
Last edited:
You want the law to provide quality? You don't know anything about quality.

But I have explained exactly how it works. And if you examine their debt, other things are the main driver of that debt. Much like here, predatory lending practices led to the collapse. But be that as it may, they spend less, and with a two tiered system of UHC, we could lower costs and improve access, which does improve over all quality.

The market place will require quality or the businesses won't survive. I want healthcare where it belongs with the individual first and then the local and state communities.

You explained theory but theory is just that, an opinion. European countries are dependent on govt. spending with that being the largest component of GDP. that isn't the case here. Austerity in Europe is a disaster because it cuts off what people are dependent on, govt. dollars? Europe also has lower defense budgets than we do which means they can focus in other areas. Their economy wasn't built on free enterprise and capitalism which seems to be something you don't understand. Costs in this country would be lower with competition, less legal expenses, and relaxing of govt. regulations on everything including FDA approval of drugs.
 
You really should read the things you post:

What Can Legislators Do to Help Control Rising Health Care Costs?
Together we can make a difference...
• Assure full funding of state government programs
• Carefully evaluate requests for additional health care mandates
• Advocate for regulatory simplification efforts
• Evaluate the cumulative effect of additional regulation prior to implementation
• Support reasonable limits on non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits


So, they are arguing that what is needed is more government. And what thy advocate for would be handled by going to a single payer UHC system. So, you're a funny fellow. :lamo

They are listing that as alternatives but what you ignore are the costs the Federal Govt. add to the private sector. Interesting how big govt. liberals like you do that. It is up to the people of the states to assure full funding of govt. programs and most do because of the balanced budget requirements

evaluate requests for additional healthcare mandates? What state requests additional healthcare mandates from the Federal Govt?

Advocate for regulatory simplifications is ongoing and you should know that but thanks for pointing out that regulations are a cost

Evaluate the cumulative effect of additional regulations, again, pointing out the obvious and that is always in question at least by my state

Support Reasonable limits on malpractice law suits-Thanks for getting on board

So what you have done is show that regulations, law suits, and govt. mandates drive up costs. Solve those problems first before implementing another massive govt. entitlement program
 
Back
Top Bottom