• 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]

Mycroft said:
LOL!!

Dude...you played just about every card in the liberal arsenal. I think you shot your wad way too soon.
Click to expand...
Translation: I can't directly point out any errors in what he said, so I'll just make an Ad hominem comment.
 
Diogenes said:
Are you aware of the events of 9/11? Have you ever heard of Ft. Hood? Do you know where Boston is? Those ignorant fanatics are chasing us, and we need to become much more aggressive in helping them achieve their goal of becoming martyrs.
Click to expand...

Ft Hood was an American Citizen, born in the USA. Boston was one American citizen and his nutcase registered alien brother.

The enemy is within. Better start locking up all the brown skins :roll:
 
Conservative said:
So, if the sky isn't falling why implement a Federal Healthcare program that puts control of all that money in the hands of the bureaucrats in D.C.? You see, you believe bureaucrats adjust when the reality is bureaucrats only spend more money. What was Medicare and SS supposed to cost?

You are someone who wants universal access thus supports universal fraud, waste, and abuse. If you truly want access then you would work within your own state to assure access for the people of your state but no, you want the Federal Govt. to create another massive entitlement program all because you cannot get the people of your state to do what you want them to do. You want to force people who don't want insurance to have it and would implement a massive bureaucratic program to do that. I call that irresponsible but I guess choice only matters when it comes to murdering a baby.
Click to expand...

It address a problem, one the states failed to address.
 
Mycroft said:
I think most conservatives aren't opposed to any particular solution. Rather, I think they are opposed to the liberal desire for the central government to impose a solution. One size fits all never works and almost always makes things worse for the majority.

Now...if you, in your State or community, want some sort of Obamacare clone, then have at it. But don't make the rest of the country follow your desires. After all, that's what America is all about.

On the other hand, if you really must have your one size fits all, central government mandated heath care system, then there are plenty of other countries who are happy to accommodate you.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's true, but I'll address it. It doesn't have to be one size fits all. Nor do I think it really is. Even if we moved to a single payer system, health professionals are still free to practice as they see fit. All we really have right now are some specific guidelines, most of which are reasonable.

And if we do adopt such a system, you may be able to find a country that you can move to. ;)
 
Neomalthusian said:
Access is not the problem, it is a distraction from the problem.

If we expand access, we make the problem of cost-containment that much more difficult. It's possible to expand access but put big constraints on cost in other ways, but it would not be easy, and some folks would get screwed over compared to what they're used to. Such is the nature of cost-containment. The idea we can make access universal and fix the cost problem simultaneously and everyone will be happy about it is delusional.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Access is a problem. And frankly, if the solution to cost is denying adequate care, I'd say we've already lost the battle. So, yes, you can denote specific cares that are necessary to public health, structure care so that there is universal access, and plan how to pay for it. This can be done. And by not doing it at an ad hoc sloppy unstructured way, we can better adjust to costs.
 
j-mac said:
Yet....
Click to expand...

Yet nothing. The fact is the fact.

And BTW, a universal payer would not be talking of the medical profession. That too is a fact.
 
calamity said:
Some are even more partisan than they are racist. It's like the "D" staring them in the face gets them twisted into knots and they suddenly see Marxists and Socialists, even when the D happens to be your run of the mill corporatist. Funny, actually, to those of us watching you/.
Click to expand...

Oh...are you a "D"? I didn't know, though I could have guessed by your rhetoric. And, you see, that's all you have: rhetoric.

Dude...you've already shot your wad with your hyperbolic playing of every card in your deck. You might as well give up now. You have nothing left but inane blatherings such as the above.
 
Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system

Boo Radley said:
I disagree. Access is a problem. And frankly, if the solution to cost is denying adequate care, I'd say we've already lost the battle.
Click to expand...

The solution to cost is to constrain them somehow or another, whether dropping coverage of some things, capping provider pay, setting prices for services, or some combination, and it's time to face reality and admit that this is not going to be easy, and some people are gonna be pissed. You throwing your hands up saying we lost the battle just because the answer is not a walk in the park suggests you have unrealistic expectations about UHC.

Consider outpatient clinic care (the one thing to which the poor are "denied access"). Ours is about twice as expensive as the #2 most expensive clinic care in the world (Sweden). Opening the doors to all people (who can't pay for it) means the federal government would be eating all of that cost, and it would be massive. No, UHC cannot be a free for all, it would have to control that outrageous clinic care cost somehow, and the act of doing it will hurt. But it's needed. Never has it been more needed.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not sure that's true, but I'll address it. It doesn't have to be one size fits all. Nor do I think it really is. Even if we moved to a single payer system, health professionals are still free to practice as they see fit. All we really have right now are some specific guidelines, most of which are reasonable.

And if we do adopt such a system, you may be able to find a country that you can move to. ;)
Click to expand...

You can't seriously think that is true. The one who pays the bills is the one who calls the shots. The more our central government takes upon themselves to pay for...the more they control. We've seen this already in so many examples. Heck...the the drinking age is a perfect example of that. Before the federal government decided to put the screws to the States, they were free to set their own drinking age...and they did. Now, the money man...the central government...has ended that.

We can only expect the same in regard to health care.
 
Mycroft said:
Oh...are you a "D"? I didn't know, though I could have guessed by your rhetoric. And, you see, that's all you have: rhetoric.

Dude...you've already shot your wad with your hyperbolic playing of every card in your deck. You might as well give up now. You have nothing left but inane blatherings such as the above.
Click to expand...
No. I'm not a "D". I vote for who I perceive is the best candidate.
 
Neomalthusian said:
The solution to cost is to constrain them somehow or another, whether dropping coverage of some things, capping provider pay, setting prices for services, or some combination, and it's time to face reality and admit that this is not going to be easy, and some people are gonna be pissed. You throwing your hands up saying we lost the battle just because the answer is not a walk in the park suggests you have unrealistic expectations about UHC.

Consider outpatient clinic care (the one thing to which the poor are "denied access"). Ours is about twice as expensive as the #2 most expensive clinic care in the world (Sweden). Opening the doors to all people (who can't pay for it) means the federal government would be eating all of that cost, and it would be massive. No, UHC cannot be a free for all, it would have to control that outrageous clinic care cost somehow, and the act of doing it will hurt. But it's needed. Never has it been more needed.
Click to expand...

We can cap electives, certainly. We don't need to pay for breast augmentation or hair transplant for male pattern baldness. And we don't need to pay for colds in the ER.

And nothing is free. Taxes pay for it, so tax payers can use it.

But to deny access to the most needy is losing the battle. Medicine is very different in that the need is humanitarian in nature. You can't sit down with the ill or the injured and haggle. Not once you reach a certain point. And being treated for emergencies or serious ills should never be denied due to cost. No person of good will could ever do that. So it is best to plan for it.

Ive stated before I don't suggest this for ever whim. But adequate care is appropriate.
 
Mycroft said:
You can't seriously think that is true. The one who pays the bills is the one who calls the shots. The more our central government takes upon themselves to pay for...the more they control. We've seen this already in so many examples. Heck...the the drinking age is a perfect example of that. Before the federal government decided to put the screws to the States, they were free to set their own drinking age...and they did. Now, the money man...the central government...has ended that.

We can only expect the same in regard to health care.
Click to expand...

I know its true.

And no, a single payer only dictates what will be covered by the payer. Much as the insurance company does. The physician is still the person who decides how to treat the patient.

And ina two tiered system, which is the only kind we have any hope of having here, the patient is still free to pay for more. More insurance, more care, more bells and whistles, even if it isn't needed.

And states are still free. They make decisions based on what they value.
 
Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system

Boo Radley said:
We can cap electives, certainly. We don't need to pay for breast augmentation or hair transplant for male pattern baldness.
Click to expand...

Well as it stands this is 0% of our money problem in health care.

And nothing is free. Taxes pay for it, so tax payers can use it.
Click to expand...

Even now taxes only pay for part of it, theoretically. We have nowhere close to a balanced budget and if FedGov starts footing the bill for our superlatively expensive clinic care on top of Medicare and Medicaid, it will compound.

But to deny access to the most needy is losing the battle. Medicine is very different in that the need is humanitarian in nature. You can't sit down with the ill or the injured and haggle. Not once you reach a certain point. And being treated for emergencies or serious ills should never be denied due to cost. No person of good will could ever do that. So it is best to plan for it.

Ive stated before I don't suggest this for ever whim. But adequate care is appropriate.
Click to expand...

You're shying away from difficult answers, and that is extremely expensive. UHC only works with long overdue and austere cost control, not just saving nickels here and there. No matter what we do to implement cost austerity under UHC, it will have the effect of "denying care" in a sense. If you insist that not happen, then you're unwittingly advocating for the health care crisis to become a fiscal crisis. Without the austere cost control, UHC would be unprecedentedly expensive.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Well as it stands this is 0% of our money problem in health care.



Even now taxes only pay for part of it, theoretically. We have nowhere close to a balanced budget and if FedGov starts footing the bill for our superlatively expensive clinic care on top of Medicare and Medicaid, it will compound.



You're shying away from difficult answers, and that is extremely expensive. UHC only works with long overdue and austere cost control, not just saving nickels here and there. No matter what we do to implement cost austerity under UHC, it will have the effect of "denying care" in a sense. If you insist that not happen, then you're unwittingly advocating for the health care crisis to become a fiscal crisis. Without the austere cost control, UHC would be unprecedentedly expensive.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that's true. I really don't.

Patients will get the care one way or another, and we'll all pay for it one way or another. We have an aging population right now, which is a problem. And there are a few places where heroic or excessive means can be avoided. And a well educated elderly might even take it upon themselves to limit some of the more questionable efforts.

But eventually that tide will turn.

I'm suggesting we can do a better job if we plan better, institute some mechanism to monitor and adjust to meet to need. Our ad hoc efforts have been very expensive. I think we can do better.
 
Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system

Boo Radley said:
I don't believe that's true. I really don't.

Patients will get the care one way or another, and we'll all pay for it one way or another. We have an aging population right now, which is a problem. And there are a few places where heroic or excessive means can be avoided. And a well educated elderly might even take it upon themselves to limit some of the more questionable efforts.

But eventually that tide will turn.

I'm suggesting we can do a better job if we plan better, institute some mechanism to monitor and adjust to meet to need. Our ad hoc efforts have been very expensive. I think we can do better.
Click to expand...

Of course we can, I think we're just disagreeing how painless or painful it will be to do significantly better.

Very simply put, either consumers control the cost or government does. There is no third way. For consumers to control cost, the system would have to be cash only. Denial of care and all that. Even most conservatives reject that, although it would be the absolute best for cost controls. Ushering in UHC is a statement to government "we can't bear to control these costs ourselves, you must do it for us," which means we place our faith in the prudence of our political class.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't believe that's true. I really don't.
Click to expand...

What you personally believe doesn't make it a fact.

Patients will get the care one way or another, and we'll all pay for it one way or another.
Click to expand...

What kind of idiotic statement is this? Talk about not having a clue...Good God!

We have an aging population right now, which is a problem.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those darned old people, they should just die off, and save us the money....

And there are a few places where heroic or excessive means can be avoided. And a well educated elderly might even take it upon themselves to limit some of the more questionable efforts.
Click to expand...

OMG! I was joking in the sentence above, but that is what you want....That's sick.

But eventually that tide will turn.
Click to expand...

Until you become old.

I'm suggesting we can do a better job if we plan better, institute some mechanism to monitor and adjust to meet to need. Our ad hoc efforts have been very expensive. I think we can do better.
Click to expand...

Centralized government never does a better job at anything.
 
calamity said:
Some are even more partisan than they are racist. It's like the "D" staring them in the face gets them twisted into knots and they suddenly see Marxists and Socialists, even when the D happens to be your run of the mill corporatist. Funny, actually, to those of us watching you/.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately to a lot of people the "D" stands for dependence created by the politicians that have a "D" after their name. Too bad you cannot see that. I grew up supporting the "D" candidates until I realized that all that spending in the name of compassion was being wasted and spent on everything other than compassionate programs. The only compassion generated was for the politicians who bought votes.
 
Boo Radley said:
It address a problem, one the states failed to address.
Click to expand...

If the states failed to address the problem whose fault is that. Only a liberal wants to legislate stupidity which is universal healthcare on a national scale with Federal Govt. oversight, the same oversight that has generated a 17 trillion dollar debt
 
Neomalthusian said:
Of course we can, I think we're just disagreeing how painless or painful it will be to do significantly better.

Very simply put, either consumers control the cost or government does. There is no third way. For consumers to control cost, the system would have to be cash only. Denial of care and all that. Even most conservatives reject that, although it would be the absolute best for cost controls. Ushering in UHC is a statement to government "we can't bear to control these costs ourselves, you must do it for us," which means we place our faith in the prudence of our political class.
Click to expand...

I don't see government that way. I see us using government as a tool with which to control both access and costs.

But you're right about denial of care. Few are willing to do that, which makes many if the market solutions ineffective.
 
j-mac said:
What you personally believe doesn't make it a fact.



What kind of idiotic statement is this? Talk about not having a clue...Good God!



Yeah, those darned old people, they should just die off, and save us the money....



OMG! I was joking in the sentence above, but that is what you want....That's sick.



Until you become old.



Centralized government never does a better job at anything.
Click to expand...

You may want to read it all together. You clearly don't know what I'm saying. Not only that, it wasn't in response to you, so he you were joking comment suggests your misreading my be because you mistook it as a reply to you.
 
calamity said:
Ft Hood was an American Citizen, born in the USA. Boston was one American citizen and his nutcase registered alien brother.

The enemy is within. Better start locking up all the brown skins :roll:
Click to expand...

Not the brown skins - that's what liberals do, judge people by skin color. Instead, neutralize the nutcases that want to impose Sharia law. Like MLK proposed, judge them by the content of their character (or lack thereof).
 
My gut says no on Hillary, throwing the whole thing wide open, especially for CC. This religion you speak of has taken over the whole show west of the Keystone states. For example, Mormon inroads are turning Oregon to light blue and soon to toss-up. All other western states are influenced, as with Prop 8.
calamity said:
In their effort to unseat the Black man with that funny name, they rallied around a flip-flopping vulture capitalist from a religion which is even kookier than the evangelical young earth society. So, those various factions will all form a truce by 2016, because evil incarnate will be on the Democratic ticket.

...and, it'll be even worse, if Hillary is the nominee.
Click to expand...
 
You tell me. You're obviously the expert on where all the money goes. I'll listen to a learned conservative like your neighbor in OK, Sen. Coburn. He's sick of you TEAloons downgrading the economy and threatening more lunacy. R is for Repulsive.
Conservative said:
Good Lord, people, the 842 billion dollar stimulus program was for infrastructure and every time you fill up with gasoline you pay for the roads and bridges in the excise taxes on gasoline and diesel. Where is all that money going? Think about it
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
You tell me. You're obviously the expert on where all the money goes. I'll listen to a learned conservative like your neighbor in OK, Sen. Coburn. He's sick of you TEAloons downgrading the economy and threatening more lunacy. R is for Repulsive.
Click to expand...

Obviously you want to continue to spout DNC talking points rhetoric and ignore reality. R is for repulsive is something I would expect from an uneducated liberal. Would that be you? It isn't Republicans downgrading the economy, it is Obama's community agitator background lacking in leadership skills that is doing it all by himself.

Get the facts on ARRA and tell me how much was spent on infrastructure and how the program was sold? Does Shovel ready jobs mean anything to you?

Breakdown of Funding
 
Conservative said:
Obviously you want to continue to spout DNC talking points rhetoric and ignore reality. R is for repulsive is something I would expect from an uneducated liberal. Would that be you?
Click to expand...
You may want to look back on your own spew in post #892 where you trashed the D word first before throwing your continued stones from your glass house.
It isn't Republicans downgrading the economy, it is Obama's community agitator background lacking in leadership skills that is doing it all by himself.

Breakdown of Funding
Click to expand...
Agitator background is sheer lunacy and removes you from serious politics, no matter how many posts you have. Your seething hatred for Obama and anyone not right-of-center can'tor be controlled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom