• 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]

Diogenes said:
This is how it doesn't work. And nobody got fired for it, either. Even after four years, it still outrages me that this could happen to any child in this country.
Click to expand...

Heh. Note that they don't call the concept of government healthcare, in this case single payer health care, into question. They just complain about inadequate funding.

Well, join the crowd. Every single payer system in the world, Canada, Great Briton, the US VA, and on and on, is inadequately funded, some just more so than others.
 
obvious Child said:
So? I never said TRICARE as a whole as Socialized. I said part of TRICARE was. You have an option to use totally socialized medicine under TRICARE and people do. My Uncle gets all his healthcare that way. Goes down to the military base, goes to a military hospital, sees a military doctor, so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the VA?
 
calamity said:
1. Can easily be seen by looking at the retreating ice packs and glaciers.
2. The Islamists have nothing. Beyond the occasional nuisance bombing, they can't touch us, other then invoke in us fear with which we then destroy ourselves. Already they are winning that game.
Click to expand...

Yeah, only about 3000 people were killed on 9-11, but the attack had effects that went far beyond that, including devastating effects on our economy and well being. A series of terrorist attacks would have sustained effects of that nature.
 
obvious Child said:
Single payer doesn't necessitate that government owns the hospitals, employes the doctors and makes the drugs. Fundamentally, single payer is merely a payment conduit. Furthermore, if your sole real measure of socialism is regulation, then banks are Socialist as they're heavily regulated. Insurance as well. Frankly anything that's "heavily" (whatever that means) is therefore Socialist. Furthermore, single payer can incorporate private insurance within it and any extras are supplemental, thus suggesting that the rich won't do what you claim.

People need to stop defining words as they please and start using the words as they actually mean.
Click to expand...

Sorry, your spin doesn't work.

The one who controls the funds controls the product.
 
calamity said:
1. At a cost of $6K to 15k for insuring a family, I'd say that's pretty easy to answer. No. Most people do not have access to affordable healthcare, and it has become a huge burden on businesses to provide health insurance to their employees.

2. Affordable would be free healthcare paid for by taxes.

3. Cutting wasteful spending on border security we don't need and building additional aircraft carrier groups on top of the 10 or so we already have would go a long way toward helping to pay the cost.
Click to expand...

1. Insurance is not health care. Insurance is simply one means of paying for health care. I think we are talking about two different things here. So...you decide what you want to talk about when you refer to affordable health care, eh?

2. "Free"..."Paid for by taxes". You ever heard of TANSTAAFL?

3. Sounds like you are comfortable reducing spending on Constitutionally mandated responsibilities of our government in order to fund some nice thing the government can do for the people. I think your priorities are skewed.
 
Paschendale said:
The majority of this country wanted single payer in the first place, rather than the profit producing smorgasbord that was Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, show me credible evidence that the majority want a single payer system. Only people who want something for nothing go for those systems.
 
American said:
Nonsense, show me credible evidence that the majority want a single payer system. Only people who want something for nothing go for those systems.
Click to expand...

Yet, sadly, that is fast becoming the majority of the people - precisely the "fundamental transformation of America" that Obama has in mind.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yet, sadly, that is fast becoming the majority of the people - precisely the "fundamental transformation of America" that Obama has in mind.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but that racist only wants a certain group of people to be on the receiving end. Remember, social justice is the goal.
 
American said:
Nonsense, show me credible evidence that the majority want a single payer system. Only people who want something for nothing go for those systems.
Click to expand...

What is it with this weird idea that liberals are all broke? Unemployment is substantially lower in red states than in blue states. People who are not selfish or afraid support single payer systems. Decent people who experience good fortune share their fortune with others, not hoard it because they're afraid of other people taking it away. Really dude, you need to stop raging against these fictional liberal boogeymen. There's real people, who are mostly decent folks, who believe in a more egalitarian system. Don't spend all your time arguing against empty chairs. You end up just filling them with things you don't like, with the dark parts of your imagination. Whatever picture you have of liberals in your mind doesn't resemble any real people.
 
Mycroft said:
Sorry, your spin doesn't work.

The one who controls the funds controls the product.
Click to expand...

Your total reliance on "I say so" doesn't convince anyone of anything you say.

By your measure, home expenses that are run by one person are socialist.

People need to stop defining words as they please and start using the words as they actually mean.
 
obvious Child said:
Your total reliance on "I say so" doesn't convince anyone of anything you say.

By your measure, home expenses that are run by one person are socialist.

People need to stop defining words as they please and start using the words as they actually mean.
Click to expand...

I haven't said anything about anything being socialist...so I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth.

We are talking about the federal government here...not about private households...so that little bit of misdirection is dismissed.

In any event, it is noticeable that you don't dispute my statement that "The one who controls the funds controls the product".
 
Paschendale said:
What is it with this weird idea that liberals are all broke? Unemployment is substantially lower in red states than in blue states. People who are not selfish or afraid support single payer systems. Decent people who experience good fortune share their fortune with others, not hoard it because they're afraid of other people taking it away. Really dude, you need to stop raging against these fictional liberal boogeymen. There's real people, who are mostly decent folks, who believe in a more egalitarian system. Don't spend all your time arguing against empty chairs. You end up just filling them with things you don't like, with the dark parts of your imagination. Whatever picture you have of liberals in your mind doesn't resemble any real people.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem with your whole screed is the part I highlighted. You see, decent people who experience good fortune DO share with others...but they do it of their own free will. Not because some government entity tells them to do it.

Liberals want the government to be in control...as we see with Obamacare...not the individual.
 
Mycroft said:
I haven't said anything about anything being socialist...so I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...

Let's recap how you fail.

I argue on the basis of what Socialism is defined as, that merely regulating does not equate to Socialism.

You called that spin and said this "The one who controls the funds controls the product."

Therefore, you define whether or not something is Socialist on the basis of funding the product, regardless of whether it meets any of the actual definitions of Socialism.

We are talking about the federal government here...not about private households...so that little bit of misdirection is dismissed.
Click to expand...

The US government funds the private deliveries to the ISS. Does that make Dragon X a private company Socialist when all of their funding comes form the Federal government? Let's see if you're going to rely on "I say so" to weasel out of that one.

Even if you control the funds and thus the product specifications, that doesn't make it Socialist. Government puts out a bid for a product doing x, y, and z. Company fulfills that. Is that Socialism when the means of production are entirely owned by a private company?

In any event, it is noticeable that you don't dispute my statement that "The one who controls the funds controls the product".
Click to expand...

Fail again. See above.

People need to stop defining words as they please and start using the words as they actually mean.
 
j-mac said:
Doesn't matter, I gave you the thread.



What? What's the matter with you?! *shakes head*
Click to expand...

There are better odds of being struck by lightening in a subway than being blown up by terrorist in one. It's Right Wing ******s who feel we need to hand over our rights and fight a global war on terror because of that remote possibility.
 
LowDown said:
Yeah, only about 3000 people were killed on 9-11, but the attack had effects that went far beyond that, including devastating effects on our economy and well being. A series of terrorist attacks would have sustained effects of that nature.
Click to expand...

One attack, one, and the country cowers like a whipped puppy, handing away our rights like scared school children. And, guess who led the charge--the Right.
 
Mycroft said:
The biggest problem with your whole screed is the part I highlighted. You see, decent people who experience good fortune DO share with others...but they do it of their own free will. Not because some government entity tells them to do it.

Liberals want the government to be in control...as we see with Obamacare...not the individual.
Click to expand...

How exactly is supporting a program not of one's free will? Unless you personally pay for someone's bill at a hospital, it's not you doing it? The government only does what we tell it to. It doesn't tell you anything. Or is it because your free will is making you not support such a program? The only freedom you're arguing for is the freedom not to share your good fortune. As I said, decent people who experience good fortune share it with others.
 
calamity said:
One attack, one, and the country cowers like a whipped puppy, handing away our rights like scared school children. And, guess who led the charge--the Right.
Click to expand...

How glib. There was a lot of concern about follow on attacks at the time. Yes, the President was a Republican, but I don't recall a lot of resistance from Democrats about the initial counterterrorism measures right on through the invasion of Afghanistan and operations in the Horn of Africa, the Trans Sahara, and the Philippines. It wasn't until Bush started talking about Iraq that any push back to speak of developed, after we had been free of major attacks on the homeland for 18 months or so.
 
Paschendale said:
How exactly is supporting a program not of one's free will? Unless you personally pay for someone's bill at a hospital, it's not you doing it? The government only does what we tell it to. It doesn't tell you anything. Or is it because your free will is making you not support such a program? The only freedom you're arguing for is the freedom not to share your good fortune. As I said, decent people who experience good fortune share it with others.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to know the difference between being coerced by the power of the state to imprison and otherwise punish and acting in one's own free will. You think people should share their good fortune so you will MAKE THEM DO IT. It is the mentality and morality of the common thief.
 
LowDown said:
You don't seem to know the difference between being coerced by the power of the state to imprison and otherwise punish and acting in one's own free will. You think people should share their good fortune so you will MAKE THEM DO IT. It is the mentality and morality of the common thief.
Click to expand...

And you don't seem to understand the difference between principle and excuses. No one should be making anyone do anything. No one should have to. That's really the whole point. You don't want the rest of the population making you contribute... so you won't have to contribute. That's all you're fighting for. Your own selfish gain while others suffer.
 
wbcoleman said:
By my logic, Congress passed it because Nancy Pelosi and Dingy Harry steamrollered it through over the objections, not only of the American people, but of their own members, many of whom [in the House] wound up losing their seats as a result.
Click to expand...

That's kind of contrary to what you said before...

wbcoleman said:
Because THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES. And why didn't they have the votes? Because THE COUNTRY DOESN'T WANT IT.
Click to expand...

You had previously contended that our congress apparently votes as the public wishes. I just disagree. I contend that they vote as their campaign donors tell them to and then make a lot of noise about social bull**** as smoke and mirrors.
 
LowDown said:
How glib. There was a lot of concern about follow on attacks at the time. Yes, the President was a Republican, but I don't recall a lot of resistance from Democrats about the initial counterterrorism measures right on through the invasion of Afghanistan and operations in the Horn of Africa, the Trans Sahara, and the Philippines. It wasn't until Bush started talking about Iraq that any push back to speak of developed, after we had been free of major attacks on the homeland for 18 months or so.
Click to expand...
You just answered the question--there've been no attacks for years. The Arabs don't have to means to sustain 911 type pressure. We overreacted out of fear, which is understandable. That we kept doing it is not.

I never said the initial response was bad, it's the ongoing WOT that's silly. The patriot act, arming LEO to the hilt, the loss of freedom, the total lockdown in airports and militarization at our southern border, complete with checkpoints along I-10 that snare mostly American citizens carrying a little pot. Those things are nuts.
 
obvious Child said:
End care is not the same thing. TRICARE includes a healthcare option where you go to a government hospital, see a government doctor, and get government own drugs. The means of production of healthcare is government owned. MEDICARE doesn't have this.

If people were actually afraid of Socialized Healthcare, they'd be first calling to turn TRICARE entirely private. You don't see this. Because they're hypocrites. Or stupid. Or ignorant.
Click to expand...

You do see this, in a round about way. It has to be round about because there is no other option.

Many people authorized Tricare don't use it. Being it is a government program, it operates under government rules. Wait times for care can be much longer as patients are seen on a priority basis for the same illness. If you are lucky, no problem, you get seen in a reasonable time frame. If not, well, to bad. Funding is always an issue toward the end of the fiscal year. Treatments and procedures, even some medicines can be postponed just to wait on a few fiscal date. The list goes on and on.

I don't think the average person really knows all that much about getting all their healthcare handled by a government agency. If they did, most probably would have been and would be a lot more vocal in their opposition to Obamacare and whatever dimwit government idea on healthcare it is that follows it. look at the games that were played in the funding of Medicare just to get Obamacare to pass. Well, unless things change, it will be games such as those played on people every year except to an even larger scale. Bad ideas don't get better with time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom