• 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]

Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. Poor quality does quite well in the market place. We have Walmart. They sell cheap low quality furniture. People go to rent to own an pay a lot for low quality products. Across the board, the market is full of low quality items that sell.

There is nothing magical about the market. And it has never been pure and Unregulated here.
 
Conservative said:
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
Click to expand...


read them carefully. They want money from the Feds. The rest is about being careful and wanting limits on law suits, which requires the federal government. Having a single payer does reduce paper work and administrative costs. States have done tort reform, and saved next to nothing (showing it was over played as an issue).
 
Boo Radley said:
That's nonsense. Poor quality does quite well in the market place. We have Walmart. They sell cheap low quality furniture. People go to rent to own an pay a lot for low quality products. Across the board, the market is full of low quality items that sell.

There is nothing magical about the market. And it has never been pure and Unregulated here.
Click to expand...


LOL, yep me need legislation to prevent stupidity. Personal responsibility doesn't exist in your world so your answer is always another govt. program and throwing more money at the issues. There is nothing magical about a massive govt. entitlement program as most people, liberals excluded, know that all these programs do is create dependence. We haven't had a pure unregulated economy in decades and decades and in fact we have more regulations today many of which aren't being enforced therefore let's pile on more? That is always the liberal answer and then when it fails just move on to some other issue while never acknowledging failure.
 
Boo Radley said:
read them carefully. They want money from the Feds. The rest is about being careful and wanting limits on law suits, which requires the federal government. Having a single payer does reduce paper work and administrative costs. States have done tort reform, and saved next to nothing (showing it was over played as an issue).
Click to expand...

No, they want the feds to pay for mandates implemented by the feds as the Contract with America prescribes. Why would the State want more federal mandates?

Yes, we can see how the law reduces paperwork as it is 18000 pages and growing. Yours is theory and there is no evidence that your theory will work and in fact are their fewer pieces of paper in the single payer Medicare program? Are you on Medicare? Cannot wait until you experience the real joys of a single payer system.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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
Click to expand...

Emergency room care is quite expensive. Now the law says they only have to treat emergencies. However, the need and the poor illogical response to the law has allowed everyone to use the ER as their doctors office. This is fool hardy. The market responded, and passed all the cost to us. We pay for it no matter what. So, who can really argue that it's best to do it ad hoc like this than to have a rational system?
 
Conservative said:
LOL, yep me need legislation to prevent stupidity. Personal responsibility doesn't exist in your world so your answer is always another govt. program and throwing more money at the issues. There is nothing magical about a massive govt. entitlement program as most people, liberals excluded, know that all these programs do is create dependence. We haven't had a pure unregulated economy in decades and decades and in fact we have more regulations today many of which aren't being enforced therefore let's pile on more? That is always the liberal answer and then when it fails just move on to some other issue while never acknowledging failure.
Click to expand...

You're jumping around again. Going to the insult instead of using reason. I make no magical claims. I only argue that a system is more efficient than this hodge podge of differing methods we currently have.
 
Conservative said:
No, they want the feds to pay for mandates implemented by the feds as the Contract with America prescribes. Why would the State want more federal mandates?

Yes, we can see how the law reduces paperwork as it is 18000 pages and growing. Yours is theory and there is no evidence that your theory will work and in fact are their fewer pieces of paper in the single payer Medicare program? Are you on Medicare? Cannot wait until you experience the real joys of a single payer system.
Click to expand...

Because they can't afford to handle all problems. There's a very clear reasons why states take government dollars.

And the paper would be less under my proposed system, not the current reform.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're jumping around again. Going to the insult instead of using reason. I make no magical claims. I only argue that a system is more efficient than this hodge podge of differing methods we currently have.
Click to expand...

In order to make that argument you have to have evidence that the govt. has been efficient in implementing other social programs and you cannot do that. Theory would say you are right but history says you are wrong.
 
Boo Radley said:
Because they can't afford to handle all problems. There's a very clear reasons why states take government dollars.

And the paper would be less under my proposed system, not the current reform.
Click to expand...

They were never intended to handle all Federal programs handed down by politicians in D.C. without getting the funding support for those programs, i.e. no child left behind. The Federal Govt is great at mandates not so great at implementing efficiency. Too many bureaucrats dependent on low voter turnout that magnifies their base of dependent voters.
 
Boo Radley said:
Emergency room care is quite expensive. Now the law says they only have to treat emergencies. However, the need and the poor illogical response to the law has allowed everyone to use the ER as their doctors office. This is fool hardy. The market responded, and passed all the cost to us. We pay for it no matter what. So, who can really argue that it's best to do it ad hoc like this than to have a rational system?
Click to expand...

Expanding the "free" (the cost is simply born by others) care given does not lower the cost of that "free" care. Note that the PPACA did not replace/remove this "free" ER care it simply added more "free" care and attempted to spread those costs over a wider base while adding more, 15% to 20% "private" medical care insurance, overhead to the mix.
 
Conservative said:
In order to make that argument you have to have evidence that the govt. has been efficient in implementing other social programs and you cannot do that. Theory would say you are right but history says you are wrong.
Click to expand...

And I've given you that before.
 
Conservative said:
They were never intended to handle all Federal programs handed down by politicians in D.C. without getting the funding support for those programs, i.e. no child left behind. The Federal Govt is great at mandates not so great at implementing efficiency. Too many bureaucrats dependent on low voter turnout that magnifies their base of dependent voters.
Click to expand...

But you'll be fine as long as the only follows.

:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Expanding the "free" (the cost is simply born by others) care given does not lower the cost of that "free" care. Note that the PPACA did not replace/remove this "free" ER care it simply added more "free" care and attempted to spread those costs over a wider base while adding more, 15% to 20% "private" medical care insurance, overhead to the mix.
Click to expand...

Nothing's free. But actually it does. We have no idea how appropriate or accurate the pass along costs are. Not paid for care may equal X, but they may made twice X in their pass along efforts. Also, a doctors office visit is much cheaper than the ER, so moving it there would be cheaper.

Now, I prefer a single payer system which lowers that overhead, removes it from business, and gives both business and individuals more cash in hand, even with a rase in taxes. More of the tax dollar would go directly to care than does the insurance dollar, thus lowering cost there as well.
 
Boo Radley said:
And I've given you that before.
Click to expand...

You are unbelievable, you did no such thing because there isn't any examples of a Federally run social program that has been efficient in implementation and operation. I find it amazing how people like you are such experts on things like Medicare that you don't even participate in. When you do get back to me and tell me how efficient that program is and why it is trillions in an unfunded liability?
 
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...
You continue to fail. Who am I to stand in your way?
 
Boo Radley said:
Nothing's free. But actually it does. We have no idea how appropriate or accurate the pass along costs are. Not paid for care may equal X, but they may made twice X in their pass along efforts. Also, a doctors office visit is much cheaper than the ER, so moving it there would be cheaper.

Now, I prefer a single payer system which lowers that overhead, removes it from business, and gives both business and individuals more cash in hand, even with a rase in taxes. More of the tax dollar would go directly to care than does the insurance dollar, thus lowering cost there as well.
Click to expand...

Your opinion noted but more importantly your acceptance of higher taxes with no assurance of lower costs and improved service. Yes, let's give the federal govt. that is 17 trillion in debt more money and another entitlement program to administer. They have done so well with SS and Medicare.
 
Conservative said:
You are unbelievable, you did no such thing because there isn't any examples of a Federally run social program that has been efficient in implementation and operation. I find it amazing how people like you are such experts on things like Medicare that you don't even participate in. When you do get back to me and tell me how efficient that program is and why it is trillions in an unfunded liability?
Click to expand...
I have complete with links.
 
Boo Radley said:
I have complete with links.
Click to expand...

No, I am sorry, you have no idea what you have posted and nothing you have posted shows the U.S. Federal Govt. being efficient in any social program or social spending and that is what Obamacare would be.
 
Conservative said:
No, I am sorry, you have no idea what you have posted and nothing you have posted shows the U.S. Federal Govt. being efficient in any social program or social spending and that is what Obamacare would be.
Click to expand...

If you ignore it, you can't see. You're really bound to an ideology and not one who is reasonable and open enough to see beyond your prejudices.
 
Boo Radley said:
If you ignore it, you can't see. You're really bound to an ideology and not one who is reasonable and open enough to see beyond your prejudices.
Click to expand...

No, sorry, cannot see what isn't there. Fact, SS and Medicare are trillions in unfunded mandates showing that single payer is ripe with abuse yet you would add another entitlement program to give the govt. more money to spend? I got it, you are a big govt. liberal.
 
Boo Radley said:
Rinse and repeat, pot to kettle! :lamo:lamo
Click to expand...

Yep, you don't like answering direct questions and being held accountable for anything you post, got it! You have no idea what you have posted but the Treasury Dept. doesn't agree with your opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom