• 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]

Boo Radley said:
Disaster? Check how the elderly before medicare and how they are now. You must not know what disaster really means. :lamo
Click to expand...

Yes, once you get someone hooked on a program it is hard to institute change. Cannot wait until you reap the benefits of Medicare. Bet you think SS is a resounding success too. Yep, nothing like a minimal return and the inability to pass on what you "contributed" should you die. the Return on Investment is incredible especially to a liberal without any economic sense.

Medicare is like all typical liberal programs, meaning well but once turned over to the politicians is full of waste, fraud, high costs, and abuse.
 
So what happens when doc's refuse to accept the mandates that are coming down the hill with this mandate? We already see that with Medicare, and to the best of my knowledge nothing in the ACA forces doc's to accept the payment offered....
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Aw, yeah, the blog with actual data in it but no, you cannot refute the data but you can attack the fact that it is a blog. Prove that the data is wrong

Don't like the blog, try the Washington Times or better yet do something you seem incapable of doing, research. Or are you like most liberals, lazy

U.S. health plans have history of cost overruns - Washington Times
Click to expand...
AW YEAH, just sayin' your source isnt exactly an independent, unbiased source, and anyone who reads it, should understand it has a serious 'conservative'(read republican) bent to it....take it with a few grains of salt.
 
randel said:
AW YEAH, just sayin' your source isnt exactly an independent, unbiased source, and anyone who reads it, should understand it has a serious 'conservative'(read republican) bent to it....take it with a few grains of salt.
Click to expand...

So tell me then what sources do you believe?

Yes, I know, the WSJ is another Conservative publication. Guess no source that doesn't spout your opinion as fact isn't going to be acceptable to you

Health Costs and History - WSJ.com
 
randel said:
my friend, read your last line, then apply it to yourself 'liberally'
Click to expand...

randel, gave you a chance, tell me what sources are acceptable to you? Apparently the Wall Street Journal isn't? How about Treasury Data? Is there anything that is going to change your mind about Obama and Obamacare?
 
Conservative said:
Yes, I did opt out of traditional Medicare and have been able to keep my doctor who doesn't accept traditional Medicare. Not sure what your problem is, you seem happy with it, enjoy it and all the benefits. Let me suffer under my own plan with my own doctor of 20 years. Much cheaper, much better, much lower deductibles. It is amazing what you can do when you do research. Change is never easy especially for people who believe SS and Medicare are such great programs.
Click to expand...

When you "opted out" did they still take $100 out of your SS check? Are you saying your insurance is not Medicare affiliated, such as a PPO? This is a real question.
 
Conservative said:
randel, gave you a chance, tell me what sources are acceptable to you? Apparently the Wall Street Journal isn't? How about Treasury Data? Is there anything that is going to change your mind about Obama and Obamacare?
Click to expand...
do your sources not have a decidedly 'conservative'(read republican) lean? no, i do not accept your 'sources', as they are biased , and i believe them to be nothing more than propaganda by an organization with an agenda ...now i'll give you a chance con, admit that your sources are biased, and admit that you understand why people have a problem with them...
 
randel said:
do your sources not have a decidedly 'conservative'(read republican) lean? no, i do not accept your 'sources', as they are biased , and i believe them to be nothing more than propaganda by an organization with an agenda ...now i'll give you a chance con, admit that your sources are biased, and admit that you understand why people have a problem with them...
Click to expand...

I asked you a question, what sources do you accept as being credible? Numbers are accurate and came from the U.S. Treasury Dept. data so still waiting. What sources do you believe?
 
Conservative said:
I asked you a question, what sources do you accept as being credible? Numbers are accurate and came from the U.S. Treasury Dept. data so still waiting. What sources do you believe?
Click to expand...
are your sources not biased con? i asked you a question
 
Conservative said:
So tell me then what sources do you believe?

Yes, I know, the WSJ is another Conservative publication. Guess no source that doesn't spout your opinion as fact isn't going to be acceptable to you

Health Costs and History - WSJ.com
Click to expand...

This is the problem, if a MSM source does not want this information to be widely known then they simply omit it. Most media bias is not in the reporting of erroneous information, that is too easy to be challenged; instead, they prefer to use "bias by omission" - allowing morons to assert that you have no proof without using "biased" sources.
 
randel said:
are your sources not biased con? i asked you a question
Click to expand...

All sources have a bias but the one thing no source can change is actual data. Now answer the question, what source do you believe? Provide me the data from the source of your choice showing actual costs of Medicare vs. projected costs?
 
randel said:
are your sources not biased con? i asked you a question
Click to expand...

OMG! Can you really be that dishonest? Just answer the question!!!! "What sources are acceptable to you?"

Good grief! :doh

If we can say that sources like Heritage, or WSJ (opinion page), or WaTimes are leaning to the right, then it still leaves you to tell us what sources that you would find "credible".... But you can't do that, because you know damned well that WaPo, NYTimes, McClatchy, Gannet papers, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC (Centers for American Progress) ALL are lean left, to severely biased.

So out with it randal, who used to say he was a conservative, and never was, tell us what sources do you want to see?
 
Conservative said:
All sources have a bias but the one thing no source can change is actual data. Now answer the question, what source do you believe? Provide me the data from the source of your choice showing actual costs of Medicare vs. projected costs?
Click to expand...
and data is open to individual interpretation, a concept you have failed to grasp.
 
randel said:
and data is open to individual interpretation, a concept you have failed to grasp.
Click to expand...

Then please interpret the data for me, the Wall Street journal data that came from actual costs and Treasury Data? I know this is really hard for you but original costs vs. actual costs today seem to say that the projections were way off and SS and Medicare cost more than intended. Interpret those results differently for us?
 
Conservative said:
Then please interpret the data for me, the Wall Street journal data that came from actual costs and Treasury Data? I know this is really hard for you but original costs vs. actual costs today seem to say that the projections were way off and SS and Medicare cost more than intended. Interpret those results differently for us?
Click to expand...

Maybe randal can jump in the way back machine and go back to 2010 for the beginning of the CBO 'adjustments' to the cost of Obamacare....

The director of the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that the health care reform legislation would cost, over the next ten years, $115 billion more than previously thought, bringing the total cost to more than $1 trillion.
The revised figure is due to estimated costs to federal agencies to implement the new health care reform bill – such as administrative expenses for the Internal Revenue Services and the Department of Health and Human Services — and the costs for a "variety of grant and other program spending for which specified funding levels for one or more years are provided in the act."

CBO: Health Care Bill Will Cost $115 Billion More Than Previously Assessed - ABC News
Click to expand...

That was that darned right wing source ABC News....:doh

Better sit down, because you are in for a “shock”: ObamaCare will cost more than previously thought.
The Congressional Budget Office today released an analysis of discretionary spending in the law, and found that those costs will “probably exceed” $115 billion over 10 years.
At a stroke, that erases almost all of ObamaCare’s $143 billion in budget savings based off rushed, incomplete CBO projections given just before the decisive House vote in March.
Of course, that original forecast also assumed politically poisonous Medicare cuts and numerous other budget tricks. But, continuing to set those issues aside, the CBO suggests even its surplus forecast may prove ephemeral.

CBO Hikes ObamaCare Cost Estimate By $115 Billion
Click to expand...

But not to fear...if we repeal it we can always get randal's buddies out there for a good protest...

 
j-mac said:
Maybe randal can jump in the way back machine and go back to 2010 for the beginning of the CBO 'adjustments' to the cost of Obamacare....



That was that darned right wing source ABC News....:doh



But not to fear...if we repeal it we can always get randal's buddies out there for a good protest...

Click to expand...


Not much of a surprise but randel is having trouble coming up with sources that are acceptable to an Obamabot
 
Conservative said:
Yes, once you get someone hooked on a program it is hard to institute change. Cannot wait until you reap the benefits of Medicare. Bet you think SS is a resounding success too. Yep, nothing like a minimal return and the inability to pass on what you "contributed" should you die. the Return on Investment is incredible especially to a liberal without any economic sense.

Medicare is like all typical liberal programs, meaning well but once turned over to the politicians is full of waste, fraud, high costs, and abuse.
Click to expand...

yes, living in poverty and not being treated because you can't afford it is much better than what we have now. Gottcha. :roll:
 
Boo Radley said:
yes, living in poverty and not being treated because you can't afford it is much better than what we have now. Gottcha. :roll:
Click to expand...

Living in poverty gives you access to Medicaid or other state programs. You do not need a Federal Program to handle those in the states with problems. Again, why hasn't your state implemented a UHC like MA?
 
Conservative said:
Living in poverty gives you access to Medicaid or other state programs. You do not need a Federal Program to handle those in the states with problems. Again, why hasn't your state implemented a UHC like MA?
Click to expand...

Medicaid is a joint partnership with the Feds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom