• 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!

Poll: Public losing trust in President Obama

Gibberish said:
Let me see if I understand correctly. Instead of providing health care to those that qualify for Medicare/Medicaid you are saying just cut them an annual check for $9k and let them do with it what they want, but hope they use it on health care.
Click to expand...
No.
Cut a check to everyone for ~$2275.00, not just those who would receive Medicare/aid. Every family of 4 would then get ~$9100 for them to use to buy health care as they saw fit.

So if they don't use it on health care, which many won't, the tax payers will then be incurring additional costs...
Click to expand...
No. They wont.
You missed the part where I said that if people do not use the money for health care, they're screwed.

Freedom is the ability to choose.
But, all choices have consequences; the consequence of you not wisely choosing what to do with yoru health care money are huge bills that YOU have to pay.
 
Goobieman said:
Not true -- he got 2 books published!!

Of course, if that's what passes for qualification to be President, then Limbaugh is qualified as well.
Click to expand...

:rofl

I still think one of the most patently absurd things about Obama and his HUGE ego is that he's written two memoirs already, and he never authored a single bill in Congress.

I mean, how many presidents have written even one memoir on their life BEFORE they were president. Shouldn't you have to do something first to "remember" it?
 
Goobieman said:
You missed the part where I said that if people do not use the money for health care, they're screwed..
Click to expand...

The problem with that little tidbit, is that you are basically saying if the parents of a child are irresponsible, you are more than willing to have a child suffer or even die.

I would even be willing to compromise with your idea that the instead of the government cutting a check to people, they cut directly to the health care provider.
 
TheNextEra said:
The problem with that little tidbit, is that you are basically saying if the parents of a child are irresponsible, you are more than willing to have a child suffer or even die.
Click to expand...
Personal freedom = personal responsibility.
If a kid dies because of the parents' irresponsibility, then the parents are at fault. The blame belongs to them, and no one else.

I would even be willing to compromise with your idea that the instead of the government cutting a check to people, they cut directly to the health care provider.
Click to expand...
3rd party providers drive up costs and drive down quality of care.
Best thing is for everyone to pay for their own goods and services.
 
Goobieman said:
Personal freedom = personal responsibility.
If a kid dies because of the parents' irresponsibility, then the parents are at fault. The blame belongs to them, and no one else.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I am not willing to let a child die right in front of me because the parent's are irresponsible. Maybe you can deal with that, I couldn't.
 
TheNextEra said:
Sorry but I am not willing to let a child die right in front of me...
Click to expand...
Then choose to use part of your money to help him.
Dont presume to make that choice for everyone.
 
TheNextEra said:
The problem with that little tidbit, is that you are basically saying if the parents of a child are irresponsible, you are more than willing to have a child suffer or even die.
Click to expand...

If parents are irresponsible, what prevents the Childs death if Government runs the healthcare system?

In today’s world, if a child needs critical care, the hospitals provide it regardless of costs. If the parents choose NOT to get the child to the hospital, nothing anyone can do will prevent that occurrence.

Are you claiming that with Government managed care parents will exercise more responsibility? :rofl
 
TheNextEra said:
Sorry but I am not willing to let a child die right in front of me because the parent's are irresponsible. Maybe you can deal with that, I couldn't.
Click to expand...

Once again we see you spew nonsense for the sake of absurdity.

Your argument basically claims that if the irresponsible parents do not buy insurance the child will die right in front of you. BUT, if the parents have that insurance paid for by others, their child will not die right in front of you.

Good lord, you really make a fool of yourself when you make such trite and nonsensical arguments. :rofl
 
Goobieman said:
Then choose to use part of your money to help him.
Dont presume to make that choice for everyone.
Click to expand...

We all have the government spending money on things we don't choose to. I don't want faith based initiatives, I didn't want the Iraq war. Suck it up, it happens.
 
Truth Detector said:
Once again we see you spew nonsense for the sake of absurdity.

Your argument basically claims that if the irresponsible parents do not buy insurance the child will die right in front of you. BUT, if the parents have that insurance paid for by others, their child will not die right in front of you.

Good lord, you really make a fool of yourself when you make such trite and nonsensical arguments. :rofl
Click to expand...

The only one looking foolish is you TD. Yes, if the child has insurance paid for by the government his chances of not dying for some injury are better than if he had NO insurance and no way to get care because of the parent's irresponsibility.
 
TheNextEra said:
We all have the government spending money on things we don't choose to. I don't want faith based initiatives, I didn't want the Iraq war. Suck it up, it happens.
Click to expand...
So... you have no -rational- argument against my posiiton.
Thanks.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Well well well. It seems that the honeymoon is over, and as people realize the emporer indeed has no clothes that its time to hold this man to his promises and actions. I for one am glad to see this empty suit's return to earth. The mod love mentality for him mad this American cringe at some of his countrymen....


That said, any of you obama supporters losing faith?
Click to expand...

Obama has the same approval numbers that Bush had 6 months into his first term.

According to CNN, an average of five different national polls taken this month (Gallup, Ipsos/McClatchy, Diageo/Hotline, USA Today/Gallup and CBS News), shows that 57 percent of Americans approve of Obama, with 36 percent disapproving.

In comparison, though, Obama is pretty much in the same boat as past presidents within in the same time frame. From CNN:

Former President George W. Bush also drew a 57 percent approval rating six months into his presidency, in July 2001. Bill Clinton stood at 48 percent in July 1993. Two-thirds of Americans polled approved of George H.W. Bush's job as president in July 1989, and six out of 10 gave Ronald Reagan the thumbs-up in July 1981.
Click to expand...

It's perfectly normal for a President's numbers to drop after a certain amount of time in office.

This isn't news.
 
Goobieman said:
So... you have no -rational- argument against my posiiton.
Thanks.
Click to expand...

Yes, its called that is what the government has decided to do with our tax money. It is taking care of our poor. You don't like that.

If you don't like it, vote them out. But to whine and cry and say we shouldn't spend things on stuff YOU don't like just because YOU don't approve of it is hilarious when the government spends things on stuff I don't like. I don't get to pick and choose, why should you?
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes...
Click to expand...
"Suck it up" isn't a rational argument, regardless of how you phrase it.

Telling me why people should not have the choice as to how to use money provided to them to acquire their own health care and then be held responsible for those choices? That's a rational argument.

Telling me why people should not have the choice to help the unfortunate, rather than having that "choice" forced on them? That would be a rational argument.

But to whine and cry...
Click to expand...
Isnt that what you're doing when you say you aren't willing to see kids die because of their irresponsible parents? Why yes it is...
I guess we can then ignore that response in this discussion, which then leaves you with....?
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes, if the child has insurance paid for by the government his chances of not dying for some injury are better than if he had NO insurance and no way to get care because of the parent's irresponsibility.
Click to expand...

There is nothing factual to support this absurd assertion; it is merely an opinion that is made in ignorance of how the REAL world works.

It borders on lunacy to suggest that if the parents have Government paid for insurance, they will be less irresponsible and the child will not die or become injured. Die from what?

In the REAL world, if the child has a fatal disease or injury TODAY, every hospital in the US will take them in and try to save the child regardless of finances and in many cases have to by law; but it would require the parents to act "responsibly" and get them to the hospital.

Hell, in California the hospitals cannot turn away ILLEGAL aliens who come to them for care; it is the LAW.

Carry on. :roll:
 
Sands said:
Obama has the same approval numbers that Bush had 6 months into his first term.
Click to expand...
So this is more evidence that Dear Leader is George Bush's third term of office?

But....wasn't it the Anti-Republicans that claimed this country could not afford "four more years.....of the last eight years"?
 
celticlord said:
Sands said:
Obama has the same approval numbers that Bush had 6 months into his first term.
Click to expand...
So this is more evidence that Dear Leader is George Bush's third term of office?

But....wasn't it the Anti-Republicans that claimed this country could not afford "four more years.....of the last eight years"?
Click to expand...
No, It just means that it's a recurring phenomenon that a president's approval numbers will go down 6 months into their first term.

Don't try to read more into this that what the facts support.

Bush's third term? What a hilarious and ludicrous assertion.
 
Goobieman said:
No.
Cut a check to everyone for ~$2275.00, not just those who would receive Medicare/aid. Every family of 4 would then get ~$9100 for them to use to buy health care as they saw fit.
Click to expand...
What good does redistributing wealth on a general level do? The purpose of the program is to give those poverty level individuals access to basic health care.

Also I need to look into this $2,275 number. That would mean the annual budget just for the checks sent for Medicare/Medicaid is $513 billion.

Goobieman said:
No. They wont.
You missed the part where I said that if people do not use the money for health care, they're screwed.

Freedom is the ability to choose.
But, all choices have consequences; the consequence of you not wisely choosing what to do with yoru health care money are huge bills that YOU have to pay.
Click to expand...

So if those people don't ever pay because they don't ever have the money they should be forced into further poverty or homelessness with outrageous medical bills or be imprisoned?

Also, the doctor will still be getting paid for helping this person that did not pay. Where do you think those funds are coming from?
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
What good does redistributing wealth on a general level do?
Click to expand...
It gives -everyone- paid equal access to health care, without spending any more money that we're already spending.
Isnt that what The Obama is trying to do now?
I mean, except for the 'without spending more money' part.
AND... it elminates two HUGE federal programs.

So if those people don't ever pay because they don't ever have the money they should be forced into further poverty or homelessness with outrageous medical bills or be imprisoned?
Click to expand...
They have the money. ~$9100/yr for a family of 4.
Aside from that - Yes.
If you are irresponsible, you suffer the consequences.
What ever happened to consequences?

Also, the doctor will still be getting paid for helping this person that did not pay. Where do you think those funds are coming from?
Click to expand...
The 'person' in question gets $2275/yr. It comes from that.
 
Gibberish said:
Also I need to look into this $2,275 number. That would mean the annual budget just for the checks sent for Medicare/Medicaid is $513 billion.
Click to expand...
The actual number for FY2008 Medicare/Medicaid spending is $682.1B
Divide by 300M.
 
Goobieman said:
It gives -everyone- paid equal access to health care, without spending any more money that we're already spending.
Isnt that what The Obama is trying to do now?
I mean, except for the 'without spending more money' part.
AND... it elminates two HUGE federal programs.
Click to expand...

So it's ok to redistribute wealth by cutting checks equally from a pool of funds but it's wrong to use those funds to provide a service to only those that need it?

Goobieman said:
They have the money. ~$9100/yr for a family of 4.
Aside from that - Yes.
If you are irresponsible, you suffer the consequences.
What ever happened to consequences?

The 'person' in question gets $2275/yr. It comes from that.
Click to expand...
And if the person doesn't have the money to pay the doctor. They are denied medical treatment and must suffer the consequences by dieing?
 
Gibberish said:
So it's ok to redistribute wealth by cutting checks equally from a pool of funds but it's wrong to use those funds to provide a service to only those that need it?
Click to expand...
Why not cover everyone for the same money you're covering just a few?
Seems to me that this idea illustrates the abject ineffectiveness and inefficacy of the Medicare/aid system. More reason to remove it.

And if the person doesn't have the money to pay the doctor. They are denied medical treatment and must suffer the consequences by dieing?
Click to expand...
If you are irresponsible, you suffer the consequences.
What ever happened to consequences?
 
Goobieman said:
The actual number for FY2008 Medicare/Medicaid spending is $682.1B
Divide by 300M.
Click to expand...

There isn't 300 million putting into the system. You have to go off the total number of employed which I think is around 230 million. You also have to remove what it costs to have a team to run the system.

Currently there are about 80 million people participating in Medicaid/Medicare. IF we go off the 2008 number Medicare paid out $230b and Medicaid paid $203b. That's $433b in 2008 participants health care bills paid. That's $5,400 per participating individual annually.
 
Gibberish said:
There isn't 300 million putting into the system.
Click to expand...
To provide for everyone, you take the total $ spent and divide by the total number of people. How many actually paid in, or what they paid in, is irrelevant.

That comes to $2275 per person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom