• 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]

obvious Child said:
Do I think Obama is a Socialist at all? No. Because, unlike you, I actually know what Socialism is. You just define it as you so please with no regards for what it means.

It's funny how you're attacking Obama for his attempts to de-socialize Socialist medicine. The hypocrisy people have here is outrageous.
Click to expand...
I believe he is steeped in Marxism and a hatred for the people who make this country work.

He is going for the big win. Once we are spied upon in our health care, our economic lives and our social interactions what else is required before we we enter the hard tyranny?
 
obvious Child said:
Oh, I never said TRICARE was good. I'm just pointing out TRICARE as an actual, working model of Socialist medicine. It also serves as a tool to point out how people who call Obama a Socialist as dirty word are extremely offended that he attempted to make Socialist Medicine less Socialist.



But this still doesn't get to the point that a single payer system is not Socialist. Private healthcare funded by a single payer isn't Socialist. As you stated, TRICARE's Socialist medicine has problems. But a single payer system doesn't own the hospitals, employ the doctors and make the drugs.

Single Payer can in theory do quite a bit of good for healthcare in depressing costs, streamlining medical records, and cutting out middle men. There's always a chance it can go wrong, but what doesn't have that problem?
Click to expand...
Would you feel better if we used the more accurate but less interesting word statist? It is also fascistic.

Putting the government in charge of yet one more thing where they have no business being is simply wrong. And we are going to fix it.
 
Conservative said:
I am missing nothing, they haven't made it better but liberalism in spite of all the failures has convinced you that a single payer system will work for 312 million Americans. Wait times in Britain and Canada tell a different story when it comes to basic hospital stays, surgeries, and care.

Waiting in the wings: Single-payer health care

Medicare doesn't have 312 million participants and is bankrupt. what happens when you put all Americans on a single payer system at the mercy of the Govt? You have so much faith in the Federal Govt. which bodes the question as to why?
Click to expand...

WND??? :lamo:lamo:lamo

Try this:

4. Life expectancy of a 65 year old increased from 79.3 years in 1965 to 83.6 years in 2007.

5. In 1962, between 9% and 16% of seniors went to charitable organizations to get their medical costs paid.

6. In 1962, more than 25% of all seniors went without medical care due to health costs

7. Before Medicare, 33% of all seniors were living in poverty. Today, less than half that number, or 14%, live in poverty.

So what is the truth? The plain truth is — America’s seniors are vastly better off today because of Medicare. A return to private insurance programs would devastate the quality of life for middle income Americans. - See more at:

Health Care for Seniors before Medicare
 
Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system

Boo Radley said:
WND??? :lamo:lamo:lamo

Try this:

4. Life expectancy of a 65 year old increased from 79.3 years in 1965 to 83.6 years in 2007.

5. In 1962, between 9% and 16% of seniors went to charitable organizations to get their medical costs paid.

6. In 1962, more than 25% of all seniors went without medical care due to health costs

7. Before Medicare, 33% of all seniors were living in poverty. Today, less than half that number, or 14%, live in poverty.

So what is the truth? The plain truth is — America’s seniors are vastly better off today because of Medicare. A return to private insurance programs would devastate the quality of life for middle income Americans. - See more at:

Health Care for Seniors before Medicare
Click to expand...

AT WHAT COST?

No **** they're better off, they're the sole beneficiaries if the most fiscally reckless program we've ever created.

Would it be worth $100 trillion to extend the lives of people who have lived full lives already another 8-10 years, assuming technology figures out a way?
 
Buck Ewer said:
Maybe the textbook of Rush...
As I have said before , All governments "redistribute" wealth. If you oppose this you define yourself as an anarchist. There are no governments that do not redistribute wealth.
In a single payer system the government would not own hospitals or drug factories or employ doctors. How could you see that as "ownership"?
Click to expand...
You have done an excellent job of making the case that all governments are evil. It is appropriate to make do with the least amount of government possible. I did not agree to be plundered. I am fighting back.
 
Neomalthusian said:
AT WHAT COST?

No **** they're better off, they're the sole beneficiaries if the most fiscally reckless program we've ever created.

Would it be worth $100 trillion to extend the lives of people who have lived full lives already another 8-10 years, assuming technology figures out a way?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's worth it. And frankly, if it was one universal system, it would be easier.

However:


Medicare has been an overwhelming success in providing access to care for groups that before its enactment had only limited access to insurance or standard health care. It is popular across the political spectrum. Polls reveal that people would rather raise taxes than cut its benefits.
Neither part B nor D faces any problem insolvency. They are adequately funded in perpetuity under current law.
The Part A trust fund is currently in better shape financially than it has been for most of its history. If all provisions of the Affordable Care Act are enforced, its financial gap is small.
Many are concerned over Medicare’s long-term affordability. If provisions of the Affordable Care Act are enforced, the added budget costs of Medicare over the next quarter century are modest and affordable.

The Current State of Medicare | Brookings Institution
 
I thought I'd add this little nugget:


Conclusion

The U.S. health care system badly needs reform. Our payment system rewards quantity rather than quality. We waste huge sums on administration and at the same time neglect administrative outlays that could lower spending and increase quality. Medicare is part of that system and therefore is infected by many of those problems. But the problems of the U.S. health care system are not confined to or disproportionate in Medicare. Attention should focus on systemic reform. The Affordable Care Act has started us on that effort. That law is not perfect. In the course of its implementation we will learn a lot and encounter unanticipated effects that will cause us to change the law. But the successful implementation of health insurance exchanges is a necessary precondition for serious consideration of a voucher system. To bull ahead with a voucher plan of any stripe, before we have in place health insurance exchanges, an essential element if such a plan is to succeed, would be rash and irresponsible.

The Current State of Medicare | Brookings Institution
 
Deuce said:
"More control" does not mean socialism. The very definition you just posted shows this. Airlines are heavily controlled, this does not mean we have socialized air travel.
Click to expand...
Would you be happier if we just went to authoritarian tyrannical rule? WE are fascistic. It is a short step to the socialism you would recognize.
 
Boo Radley said:
Of course we rolled back regulations on banks, and are still reluctant to go far enough to actually stop that greed thing. ;)
Click to expand...
Really? Dodd-Frank is a rollback? We will discover in time that next to Obamacare this is the worst thing to ever happen to this nation. I hope one day we will see capital punishment for everyone who agreed to it.
 
Misterveritis said:
Would you feel better if we used the more accurate but less interesting word statist? It is also fascistic.

Putting the government in charge of yet one more thing where they have no business being is simply wrong. And we are going to fix it.
Click to expand...

Socialist, fascist and statist at the same time. Amazing. I think you forgot Maoist, Marxist... and all other "ists" that are out there whose definitions you don't know as well.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, besides the excessive hyperbole, I welcome the effort from all concerned. But going back to what was worse seems like poor thinking to me. The elderly are unequivocally better off to today than before Medicare.
Click to expand...
There is nothing worse than being slaves to the state.
 
poweRob said:
Socialist, fascist and statist at the same time. Amazing.
Click to expand...
It's all anti-Randian, no matter how much sense it makes currently Rand, who died sucking up Social Security and Medicare benefits, would not have approve of it therefore we must oppose it because in her book, well, you get the rest.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Did you watch Coach Carter or something before you typed that? Damn, I almost stood up and saluted.
Click to expand...
As well you should. It is not too late for you to come to the right side and to be on the right side of the history of liberty.
 
Misterveritis said:
Really? Dodd-Frank is a rollback? We will discover in time that next to Obamacare this is the worst thing to ever happen to this nation. I hope one day we will see capital punishment for everyone who agreed to it.
Click to expand...

Largely a toothless effort wasn't it?
 
Boo Radley said:
WND??? :lamo:lamo:lamo

Try this:

4. Life expectancy of a 65 year old increased from 79.3 years in 1965 to 83.6 years in 2007.

5. In 1962, between 9% and 16% of seniors went to charitable organizations to get their medical costs paid.

6. In 1962, more than 25% of all seniors went without medical care due to health costs

7. Before Medicare, 33% of all seniors were living in poverty. Today, less than half that number, or 14%, live in poverty.

So what is the truth? The plain truth is — America’s seniors are vastly better off today because of Medicare. A return to private insurance programs would devastate the quality of life for middle income Americans. - See more at:

Health Care for Seniors before Medicare
Click to expand...
Does this mean you are for the massive theft of wealth from the young to give to the greedy geezers? What will happen if the young ever figure it out?
 
Misterveritis said:
No. Now we have the tools to fight you. And fight we shall.

Join me and return to the right side of the history of freedom and liberty.
Click to expand...

No freedoms nor liberties have been lost that I know of. I do today what I did fifty years ago.
 
poweRob said:
Socialist, fascist and statist at the same time. Amazing. I think you forgot Maoist, Marxist... and all other "ists" that are out there whose definitions you don't know as well.
Click to expand...
They are all very closely related. Fascism, socialism, Marxism, statism are all strains of the same ill. They are all tools of the authoritarian tyrant.
 
Misterveritis said:
Does this mean you are for the massive theft of wealth from the young to give to the greedy geezers? What will happen if the young ever figure it out?
Click to expand...

They will be greedy geezers soon enough, but that's largely a misrepresentation. With a little work with healthcare overall, we can do it all for less. The least cost would be UHC.
 
Boo Radley said:
No freedoms nor liberties have been lost that I know of. I do today what I did fifty years ago.
Click to expand...
Really? So you can paint where you want? You can buy the toilet you want? You can buy any lightbulb you want? You can build on your property?

You know you are bordering on lying. Or you have not been paying attention.
 
Boo Radley said:
They will be greedy geezers soon enough, but that's largely a misrepresentation. With a little work with healthcare overall, we can do it all for less. The least cost would be UHC.
Click to expand...

You should have just said yes. You are all for the government plundering the young and the productive.
 
Misterveritis said:
Really? So you can paint where you want? You can buy the toilet you want? You can buy any lightbulb you want? You can build on your property?

You know you are bordering on lying. Or you have not been paying attention.
Click to expand...

I do all those things.
 
Misterveritis said:
You should have just said yes. You are all for the government plundering the young and the productive.
Click to expand...

If I did, I'd be exaggerating as badly as you guys. Not my style. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom