• 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]

When I received free medical, while in the Army, I would go on sick call simply because I didn't feel like working and claim I had a headache. We can't have UHC without people abusing it.

On the other hand, 9 years ago I was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder via VA. If I had been diagnosed back when I was 16 I would've, maybe, had a more prosperous life being my temper and my anxiety attack got me fired a lot. Now that I'm properly medicated people actually like me. But now I'm a burnt out ex-programmer with obsolete skills. Additionally if my sister had healthcare, prior to getting on Medicaid, she would not be in as serious condition she is now. She has fibers in her uterus that has to be surgically removed. They bleed constantly out her vagina leaving blood spots when she sits and making her low on iron. She also has an enlarged liver and is below 50 on Platelets which means she could have a brain hemorrhage at any moment. The fact that she's on medicaid and not real insurance is why they probably didn't immediately hospitalize her. So I have a personal interest in my family having health care.

However, can we as a country afford to pay for everyone's healthcare without going bankrupt? I don't think so. And do we as citizens actually have a right to health care simply for existing? Then it's the right to a house, and a right to food in your belly and the road towards socialism. Emotionally we should have all of these things. Logically maybe not.
 
Slyhunter said:
When I received free medical, while in the Army, I would go on sick call simply because I didn't feel like working and claim I had a headache. We can't have UHC without people abusing it.

On the other hand, 9 years ago I was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder via VA. If I had been diagnosed back when I was 16 I would've, maybe, had a more prosperous life being my temper and my anxiety attack got me fired a lot. Now that I'm properly medicated people actually like me. But now I'm a burnt out ex-programmer with obsolete skills. Additionally if my sister had healthcare, prior to getting on Medicaid, she would not be in as serious condition she is now. She has fibers in her uterus that has to be surgically removed. They bleed constantly out her vagina leaving blood spots when she sits and making her low on iron. She also has an enlarged liver and is below 50 on Platelets which means she could have a brain hemorrhage at any moment. The fact that she's on medicaid and not real insurance is why they probably didn't immediately hospitalize her. So I have a personal interest in my family having health care.

However, can we as a country afford to pay for everyone's healthcare without going bankrupt? I don't think so. And do we as citizens actually have a right to health care simply for existing? Then it's the right to a house, and a right to food in your belly and the road towards socialism. Emotionally we should have all of these things. Logically maybe not.
Click to expand...

morbidity
1: the quality or state of being morbid
2
: the relative incidence of disease

This is a word I word I had to become very familiar with. You see at one time I was diagnosed with a very serious heart condition. At the time the prognosis was 4 - 5 years heart transplant and or death. I went into the medical program I did what I had to do. I would sleep 16 hours aday, over the past 3 and 1/2 years I might have missed four doses of my drugs. It was pure hell and I lost alot. People like my my wife left me. I lost my step son whom I potty trained. My mental state went nuts. I'm back though and I'm really looking forward to this life again!
 
I'd like to note that Alabama Paul's statement of the Federal Government paying for the unpaid Emergency room visits is factually wrong....I believe in some states may opt for federal Health Care grants and use portions of those grants to pay for the lacking payments due hospitals, but in the end that is up to the state.

Most hospitals write off huge amounts of unpaid bills as a loss against services gaining a lower bottom line in federal filing, that may also be an avenue of what AP, and Boo are talking about, but it is a disingenuous, and round about way to get there. It's the same type of argument as labeling tax breaks that every business in America gets to take advantage of, as 'subsidies' if the progressive left doesn't like the business.

Here in SC, if you go to the hospital for a service and they are state funded, and you don't pay, then your state tax refund is taken. Notice I didn't say your Federal refund....So, my take on it, is that although the state does take money for health services now from the Federal government, it is up to the state how they allocate those funds, therefore, the state's taxpayer is who is on the hook for unpaid hospital services.
 
Misterveritis said:
Sixty. One must learn to be flexible. What term would you use to describe someone in the context of part black and part white? If it sounds better I will use it.
Click to expand...
Grey.
 
Conservative said:
You never answer a question, do you? Why such passion for this issue? What is in it for you? BUT the most important, what happens if you are wrong?
Click to expand...

Nothing happens if I'm wrong. I've told you this. We could not spend more. Up is really the only place we can go right now. We've seen what happens with you being wrong: all the things you keep complaining will happen.
 
j-mac said:
I'd like to note that Alabama Paul's statement of the Federal Government paying for the unpaid Emergency room visits is factually wrong....I believe in some states may opt for federal Health Care grants and use portions of those grants to pay for the lacking payments due hospitals, but in the end that is up to the state.

Most hospitals write off huge amounts of unpaid bills as a loss against services gaining a lower bottom line in federal filing, that may also be an avenue of what AP, and Boo are talking about, but it is a disingenuous, and round about way to get there. It's the same type of argument as labeling tax breaks that every business in America gets to take advantage of, as 'subsidies' if the progressive left doesn't like the business.

Here in SC, if you go to the hospital for a service and they are state funded, and you don't pay, then your state tax refund is taken. Notice I didn't say your Federal refund....So, my take on it, is that although the state does take money for health services now from the Federal government, it is up to the state how they allocate those funds, therefore, the state's taxpayer is who is on the hook for unpaid hospital services.
Click to expand...

If they use federal dollars, and most do, he's correct.
 
Conservative said:
Well, what do you expect from a Conservative, I just do basic research and verify the rhetoric or disprove it. Don't know what has gotten in to me. Learned that at an early age. Shame on me.
Click to expand...

Well, you've done a terrible job of it because America's costs are literally the highest and its wait times aren't exactly stellar. When you hear wait time statistics, take note that it is always either the UK or Canada. Because France, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Japan, etc... shorter wait times to go with those lower costs.
 
j-mac said:
I'd like to note that Alabama Paul's statement of the Federal Government paying for the unpaid Emergency room visits is factually wrong....I believe in some states may opt for federal Health Care grants and use portions of those grants to pay for the lacking payments due hospitals, but in the end that is up to the state.

Most hospitals write off huge amounts of unpaid bills as a loss against services gaining a lower bottom line in federal filing, that may also be an avenue of what AP, and Boo are talking about, but it is a disingenuous, and round about way to get there. It's the same type of argument as labeling tax breaks that every business in America gets to take advantage of, as 'subsidies' if the progressive left doesn't like the business.

Here in SC, if you go to the hospital for a service and they are state funded, and you don't pay, then your state tax refund is taken. Notice I didn't say your Federal refund....So, my take on it, is that although the state does take money for health services now from the Federal government, it is up to the state how they allocate those funds, therefore, the state's taxpayer is who is on the hook for unpaid hospital services.
Click to expand...

Ok, so the state taxpayers are on the hook instead of federal. So? That's not any better, the costs are still being dumped on everyone else.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
It's sometimes much cheaper to enter a medical facility as a cash customer...
Click to expand...

Damn straight! From yesterday's WSJ, Jeffrey Singer: The Man Who Was Treated for $17,000 Less makes your point very well, along with an excellent case for getting rid of ObamaCare and replacing it with real insurance, like auto insurance which can be purchased across state lines, and transparent pricing that introduces competition to promote progress and lower prices as has happened in the fields of Lasik surgery and cosmetic surgery.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nothing happens if I'm wrong. I've told you this. We could not spend more. Up is really the only place we can go right now. We've seen what happens with you being wrong: all the things you keep complaining will happen.
Click to expand...

Up is where we are going with Obamacare and you know it, wait times go up, costs go up, but it makes you feel good knowing that everyone is going to experience the same problems with longer waits and lower quality.
 
Deuce said:
Well, you've done a terrible job of it because America's costs are literally the highest and its wait times aren't exactly stellar. When you hear wait time statistics, take note that it is always either the UK or Canada. Because France, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Japan, etc... shorter wait times to go with those lower costs.
Click to expand...


LOL, yes, let's compare apples and oranges which you are good at doing. Any idea what criteria is being used to generate those stats? How does UHC help you and your family? I thought you were kidding but apparently not. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and total ignorance of reality? You would give the U.S. Politicians that created a 17 trillion dollar debt control o 1/6 of the U.S. economy? They have to love having people like you.
 
Deuce said:
Ok, so the state taxpayers are on the hook instead of federal. So? That's not any better, the costs are still being dumped on everyone else.
Click to expand...

Of course it is better, why should the federal taxpayer pay for personal responsibility issues in the states. The states can do what MA did and implement UHC if the citizens want it vs. thrusting a national program on 312 million Americans.
 
Earlier I wrote, "One must learn to be flexible. What term would you use to describe someone in the context of part black and part white? If it sounds better I will use it."

calamity said:
Grey.
Click to expand...
Fail. Your response was unimaginative, not to mention incorrect. Has any communist or Marxist anywhere at anytime ever described themselves as gray?

Obama is more Marxist/Red (2/3rds) than black (1/6th) or white (1/6th).
 
Conservative said:
Up is where we are going with Obamacare and you know it, wait times go up, costs go up, but it makes you feel good knowing that everyone is going to experience the same problems with longer waits and lower quality.
Click to expand...

Nope. It'll be the same as it always has been under the ACA. Wealthy will do well, and working poor not so much.
 
Misterveritis said:
1. Earlier I wrote, "One must learn to be flexible. What term would you use to describe someone in the context of part black and part white? If it sounds better I will use it."


Fail. Your response was unimaginative, not to mention incorrect. Has any communist or Marxist anywhere at anytime ever described themselves as gray?

2. Obama is more Marxist/Red (2/3rds) than black (1/6th) or white (1/6th).
Click to expand...
You must live in your own world.
1. A mix of black and white is grey. Sorry if you fail to see that.

2. Obama is as much a Marxist as I am a Far Right, Christian Conservative. You obviously wouldn't know Marxism if it stood up and bit you in the ass.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nope. It'll be the same as it always has been under the ACA. Wealthy will do well, and working poor not so much.
Click to expand...

Better explain that to the CBO that states Obamacare costs will go up and will raise the deficit so if it is the same as it always has been why waste the money? We don't have another trillion dollars to add to the debt
 
Conservative said:
Better explain that to the CBO that states Obamacare costs will go up and will raise the deficit so if it is the same as it always has been why waste the money? We don't have another trillion dollars to add to the debt
Click to expand...

And of course you loved the CBO when it said the opposite.
 
Boo Radley said:
And of course you loved the CBO when it said the opposite.
Click to expand...

No, using CBO which you seem to love and use when it benefits you. Never have been a fan of CBO and certainly no fan of Obamacare. CBO never said the opposite and always had a cost associated with it. You choose to ignore costs because all you care about is access. Seems access will benefit you financially in some way.
 
Conservative said:
No, using CBO which you seem to love and use when it benefits you. Never have been a fan of CBO and certainly no fan of Obamacare. CBO never said the opposite and always had a cost associated with it. You choose to ignore costs because all you care about is access. Seems access will benefit you financially in some way.
Click to expand...

Did I bring it up or you?
 
Deuce said:
Ok, so the state taxpayers are on the hook instead of federal. So? That's not any better, the costs are still being dumped on everyone else.
Click to expand...

Ok, so in that aspect what makes any UHC plan, or this monstrosity any better?
 
calamity said:
You must live in your own world.
1. A mix of black and white is grey. Sorry if you fail to see that.

2. Obama is as much a Marxist as I am a Far Right, Christian Conservative. You obviously wouldn't know Marxism if it stood up and bit you in the ass.
Click to expand...

Obama is a progressive, and an extreme ideologue, and a liar, which is worse.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, so in that aspect what makes any UHC plan, or this monstrosity any better?
Click to expand...

Costs less with better access and removes it from being linked to employment.
 
Boo Radley said:
Costs less with better access and removes it from being linked to employment.
Click to expand...

Costs less - Nope

Better access - ok, but with worse treatment and rationing.

Linked to employment - not according to Obamacare.
 
Boo Radley said:
Did I bring it up or you?
Click to expand...

You said that things wouldn't change, CBO says you are wrong, costs are going up, and history of other countries shows that wait times are up, and MA shows that ER usage is up. The only so called benefit is everyone is insured, no assurance of quality improvements, no assurance that even with access that they can get an appointment or a doctor, no assurance at all that costs to the taxpayers will go down.

In my working career, I operated on the principle that if you are 80% sure that a decision is the right one then make that decision. There isn't a person out there other than maybe the leftwing wacko who believes with a 80% certainty that things will be better under Obamacare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom