• 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!

Obama aide: Debt limit fight could be "catastrophic"

Do you believe this source is nonpartisan, and not influenced by political ideaology? Just asking.

Do you refute the numbers posted? Whether or not a source is partisan or not isn't the issue, as has been posted it is the numbers that matterr and the numbers can easily be verified. You believe the source is biased then prove the numbers wrong.
 
let me counter with:

BOSTON—The percentage of residents enrolled in a health care plan continues to increase in Massachusetts, the only state to achieve near-universal health insurance coverage, according to a report.

As of June, 98.1% of state residents had coverage compared with 97.3% in 2009, according to a report released Monday by the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy.

(Snip)

“Massachusetts' achievements in health care reform have been nothing short of extraordinary,” Massachusetts Secretary of Health and Human Services Dr. JudyAnn Bigby said in a statement. “With employers, government and individuals all sharing the responsibility of reform, we continue to have the highest insurance rate in the nation,” she added.

Massachusetts' insured rate hits 98.1%: Analysis | Business Insurance


Of 2135 practicing Massachusetts physicians who responded to the poll, 70% said they support the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Law, whereas 13% oppose it (see Table 1). The levels of support among primary care doctors and among specialists were similar. When asked about the law’s future, 75% indicated that they want the law to remain in place — 46% with some changes, and 29% as is. Seven percent favored repealing the legislation. Physicians who mentioned that some changes are needed were asked in an open-ended question what change they would most like to see. They most frequently mentioned issues related to expanding coverage (34%) and addressing the costs of the program (23%). Approximately three quarters of Massachusetts physicians (79%) reported being very or somewhat satisfied with their medical practice. Fifty percent reported that things at their practice had gotten worse over the past 3 years, and 23% said things had gotten better. Few said that the Massachusetts health care reform law was a major reason for positive changes (13%) or negative ones (11%).

Physicians’ Views of the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Law

LOL, again what good is universal healthcare if people cannot get into seeing a doctor and healthcare costs rise? MA has among the highest healthcare costs in the nation yet you are proposing that on a national scale. Which is it today, costs or access that you are on your soapbox about. If it is costs, MA destroys your argument, if it is about access, then MA also destroys your argument, access doesn't do any good if one cannot get into see a doctor.
 
Do you refute the numbers posted? Whether or not a source is partisan or not isn't the issue, as has been posted it is the numbers that matterr and the numbers can easily be verified. You believe the source is biased then prove the numbers wrong.

It's rarely the numbers, but the interpretation of those numbers that I dispute. Same here. try reading this one:

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7777-02.pdf
 
LOL, again what good is universal healthcare if people cannot get into seeing a doctor and healthcare costs rise? MA has among the highest healthcare costs in the nation yet you are proposing that on a national scale. Which is it today, costs or access that you are on your soapbox about. If it is costs, MA destroys your argument, if it is about access, then MA also destroys your argument, access doesn't do any good if one cannot get into see a doctor.

I present the doctors themselves speaking. They don't seem to be with you one this.
 

You should read it:

•Some characteristics of the Massachusetts health care marketplace that may be contributing to the high levels of cost growth, include:

◦High concentration of physicians (especially specialists);
◦Greater availability and use of academic medical centers for both inpatient and outpatient hospital based-services, and use of outpatient hospital-based facilities for some services that could be provided in less costly settings;
◦Richer health insurance benefits compared to the nation; and
◦Use of payment methods that are not designed to incentivize efficiency and coordination of medical care.


Seems like an adjustment is needed and not a scraching of the system, especially since "The Commonwealth's health care system is a key employer and driver of economic growth for the region."
 
A lot? No. But what benefit does NCPA get from stopping reform? :roll:

You mean by posting actual numbers? The state of MA shows costs rising and MA being one of the highest healthcare cost states in the nation. Why is the state lying?
 
Not familar with the Austrian school of economics but my response was more to Boo and his stance on raising taxes on the rich and Obamacare. Paul certainly believes in a smaller Defense Department which is probably possible but it is harder defending a nation of 308 million with the land mass we have along with the bullseye on this country by radical Islam and rogue nations like Iran and North Korea.

this is the interesting chicken and egg situation of our time. would radical islam and rogue nations like iran and north korea care about us at all if we didn't have thousands of over seas bases in 90 nations around the world? how would you react if our government allowed saudi arabia to have an air base in our country? what if iran and north korea had thousands of troops in canada and mexico, with multiple carrier groups just off shore? there's always gonna be a few madmen, but could they recruit followers if we didn't have a global defense network that is being used around the world to keep tyrannical regimes in power? suddenly it appears that this global defense network is actually the cause of and solution to all of government's troubles. as a small government conservative you can't seriously support this.
 
You mean by posting actual numbers? The state of MA shows costs rising and MA being one of the highest healthcare cost states in the nation. Why is the state lying?

Who said the state is lying? Are they arguing for repeal? Are doctors in favor of repeal? Read what is written.
 
this is the interesting chicken and egg situation of our time. would radical islam and rogue nations like iran and north korea care about us at all if we didn't have thousands of over seas bases in 90 nations around the world? how would you react if our government allowed saudi arabia to have an air base in our country? what if iran and north korea had thousands of troops in canada and mexico, with multiple carrier groups just off shore? there's always gonna be a few madmen, but could they recruit followers if we didn't have a global defense network that is being used around the world to keep tyrannical regimes in power? suddenly it appears that this global defense network is actually the cause of and solution to all of government's troubles. as a small government conservative you can't seriously support this.

As stated, I don't believe that the military should be removed from making cuts to reduce the size of govt. but the number one responsibility assigned to the govt. is defense. Right now defense constitutes 1/6 of the budget and that is where the real crime lies. Does that mean that defense should be increased, no, that means that the budget needs to be cut starting with entitlement programs and get the total size down.
 
Who said the state is lying? Are they arguing for repeal? Are doctors in favor of repeal? Read what is written.

You are the one that raised the source as the issue so when I give you the actual numbers you divert as usual. Your argument regarding either cost or access doesn't hold up. Costs in MA are rising and although people have access they cannot get an appointment therefore ER usage is skyrocketing and MA has more doctors per capita than any other state in the nation. Keey that head buried in the sand.
 
Found this on your site as well conservative:

Yesterday, the Division released its 2010 Massachusetts Household Insurance Survey results, showing that not only does Massachusetts continue to have the highest health insurance coverage rate in the nation, but that our state has seen gains even through an economic recession.

This year, more than 98 percent of Massachusetts residents have health insurance. These results are astonishing.

Some of the most exciting news is related to children and elderly adults, as the survey found that virtually all Massachusetts children have health insurance (99.8 percent) and nearly all elderly adults are covered (99.6 percent).

Health Reform: A Success Story

Paying more for more is better than paying more for less. Much of the nation has been paying more for less. They've managed to improve to paying more for more. With a little work, they may well move to paying less for more. Let's keep watch together. ;)
 
I present the doctors themselves speaking. They don't seem to be with you one this.

Doctors have all the business they can handle and more, problem is the people cannot get access due to the fact that no matter that MA has the highest number of doctors per capita in the nation that isn't enough nor are there enough hours in the day to handle the damand thus ER's are picking up the slack. Costs are rising and that doesn't directly affect doctors in MA but it does affect the taxpayers which includes doctors.
 
Found this on your site as well conservative:

Yesterday, the Division released its 2010 Massachusetts Household Insurance Survey results, showing that not only does Massachusetts continue to have the highest health insurance coverage rate in the nation, but that our state has seen gains even through an economic recession.

This year, more than 98 percent of Massachusetts residents have health insurance. These results are astonishing.

Some of the most exciting news is related to children and elderly adults, as the survey found that virtually all Massachusetts children have health insurance (99.8 percent) and nearly all elderly adults are covered (99.6 percent).

Health Reform: A Success Story

Paying more for more is better than paying more for less. Much of the nation has been paying more for less. They've managed to improve to paying more for more. With a little work, they may well move to paying less for more. Let's keep watch together. ;)

Right and you conveniently left out the statement which pointed out that access isn't worth a lot if you cannot get into a doctor's office. people are paying for the healthcare and not getting the service.
 
Obama aide: Debt limit fight could be catastrophic | Reuters

Congress has raised the debt ceiling six times in the last three years [/B]to keep pace with our deteriorating financial situation.

The GOP wants to end this practice, and the Obama administration considers that possibly catastrophic. Typical.

Where was the Republican opposition, during Reagan's tenure, when the National debt tripled and the income tax for the top earners dropped from 70 t0 39.5 percent?

ricksfolly
 
Right and you conveniently left out the statement which pointed out that access isn't worth a lot if you cannot get into a doctor's office. people are paying for the healthcare and not getting the service.

No, I said doctors disagree with you that they can't get into a doctor's office. They favor this plan by a wide margin, and I linked that for you. People are getting service. You simply have it wrong. That's why the Commonwealth link you have show they are happy with the service, but concerned about the cost. Paying more, but getting more.
 
Where was the Republican opposition, during Reagan's tenure, when the National debt tripled and the income tax for the top earners dropped from 70 t0 39.5 percent?

ricksfolly

National Debt went from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion with Reagan and Congress adding 1.7 trillion to the debt. Today that debt is 14.5 trillion of which Obama has added 3.5 trillion in 2 years. I would take a 2.6 trillion debt in a heartbeat over what we have plus the policies that were in place at the time.
 
Ricksfolly: Reagan and his fellow Republicans famously made a deal with the Democratic Congress over that issue; Reagan agreed to raise taxes if Congress agreed to cut spending $3 for every $1 of increased taxes that Reagan agreed to. Reagan got played for a sucker, and agreed to raise taxes before Congress cut the spending, so the spending cuts just never came.
 
No, I said doctors disagree with you that they can't get into a doctor's office. They favor this plan by a wide margin, and I linked that for you. People are getting service. You simply have it wrong. That's why the Commonwealth link you have show they are happy with the service, but concerned about the cost. Paying more, but getting more.

Great, then since doctors like the program, the people in MA don't have a problem paying higher prices, and MA has implemented and controls the program, why does the Federal Govt. have to create Obamacare. If it is so good in MA, why aren't you working with Iowa to implement it there? You don't need the Federal Govt. to do it for you
 
Ricksfolly: Reagan and his fellow Republicans famously made a deal with the Democratic Congress over that issue; Reagan agreed to raise taxes if Congress agreed to cut spending $3 for every $1 of increased taxes that Reagan agreed to. Reagan got played for a sucker, and agreed to raise taxes before Congress cut the spending, so the spending cuts just never came.

GHW Bush did the same thing, agreed to the tax increases but didn't get the promised spending cuts.
 
Great, then since doctors like the program, the people in MA don't have a problem paying higher prices, and MA has implemented and controls the program, why does the Federal Govt. have to create Obamacare. If it is so good in MA, why aren't you working with Iowa to implement it there? You don't need the Federal Govt. to do it for you

Let's stay on topic. You made calims about the MA system which are not quite true. That's the issue.

Now, as the entire nation is struggleing with health care, and that is what you want to cahnge the subject to, I argue it is a national problem. And it likely can't be fixed until tackled nationally, most likley with a single payer system. this would help remove business from providing health insurance, and make them more competative, and allow a great pool of premium payers who are well to help cover those who are not.

We've been through this you know. . . .:coffeepap
 
As stated, I don't believe that the military should be removed from making cuts to reduce the size of govt. but the number one responsibility assigned to the govt. is defense. Right now defense constitutes 1/6 of the budget and that is where the real crime lies. Does that mean that defense should be increased, no, that means that the budget needs to be cut starting with entitlement programs and get the total size down.

sorry to inform you but defense is actually much closer to 1/3 of the budget. it's pretty clear that DoD is 1/6 of it, but once you add all the other stuff that's directly related to defense, such as homeland security, state department payoffs, energy department's nuclear weapons development and others it gets to at least 1/3 of the budget. when you add the interest payments on the debt this causes it goes even higher. DoD spending is about the same as the rest of the world's defense spending combined. 50% of global defense spending for 5% of the population. you two sit here and squabble about how much more we pay for health care. how about how much more we pay to protect us? for the rest of the world to match us percapita they'd have to increase their spending ten fold.
 
Back
Top Bottom