• 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"

Boo Radley said:
Read those. Not all that convincing to tell you the truth. More like excusing making. And doesn't in anyway answer anything we're discussing in this trhead.
Click to expand...

Nor does anything you post, when you post information from the WHO you have no credibility. When you ignore the costs of R&D, malpractice suits, govt. regulations, and illegal immigration you also destroy your own statements. I am still waiting for an explanation as to what it is in it for you as you have way too much passion for national healthcare and a single payer system.
 
Conservative said:
Nor does anything you post, when you post information from the WHO you have no credibility. When you ignore the costs of R&D, malpractice suits, govt. regulations, and illegal immigration you also destroy your own statements. I am still waiting for an explanation as to what it is in it for you as you have way too much passion for national healthcare and a single payer system.
Click to expand...

WHO has credibility. They clearly state their standard and medthodolgy, whihc is why you can argue with them. You may not agree with their standard, and some legitimately don't. But that doesn't make them not credible.

In it for me? I personally wouldn't benefit more than anyone else, but the nation, particularly as a public health issue, would benefit greatly.
 
Boo Radley said:
WHO has credibility. They clearly state their standard and medthodolgy, whihc is why you can argue with them. You may not agree with their standard, and some legitimately don't. But that doesn't make them not credible.

In it for me? I personally wouldn't benefit more than anyone else, but the nation, particularly as a public health issue, would benefit greatly.
Click to expand...

The nation would? Who are you to determine what is the best for the nation? If you truly cared about the nation you would question why Medicare and SS cost more and generate such a poor return for those that are forced to contribute yet for some reason believe national healthcare would be different? Still waiting for your explanation as to where healthcare costs show up in GDP calculations? Also waiting for a comparision between regulations, malpractice suits, R&D costs, and illegal alien costs in those countries with lower costs than the U.S.
 
Conservative said:
The nation would? Who are you to determine what is the best for the nation? If you truly cared about the nation you would question why Medicare and SS cost more and generate such a poor return for those that are forced to contribute yet for some reason believe national healthcare would be different? Still waiting for your explanation as to where healthcare costs show up in GDP calculations? Also waiting for a comparision between regulations, malpractice suits, R&D costs, and illegal alien costs in those countries with lower costs than the U.S.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to debate accepted fact with you. Either argue that we do not pay more, or accept the fact.

As for what is best, is that really that hard? If people who don't have access, would it really be debatable that it would be better for them to have access? ANd if access improves over all general health, can you really argue that wouldn't be better for us as a nation? Seems hard to do, but you're to give it a shot.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not going to debate accepted fact with you. Either argue that we do not pay more, or accept the fact.

As for what is best, is that really that hard? If people who don't have access, would it really be debatable that it would be better for them to have access? ANd if access improves over all general health, can you really argue that wouldn't be better for us as a nation? Seems hard to do, but you're to give it a shot.
Click to expand...

Sorry, cannot accept the so called facts that we pay more because we don't know what went into creating those numbers. Are the taxes paid by Europe for gasoline calculated in their cost estimates since some of the gasoline taxes fund healthcare? Posting WHO numbers without context doesn't create an accurate comparison.

People in MA have access but cannot get into seeing a doctor thus they go to the ER's. That is driving up costs. You keep ignoring that reality and what will happen when another 40 million are added to the roles with no infrastructure or enough working hours in the day to handle the masses.
 
Conservative said:
Sorry, cannot accept the so called facts that we pay more because we don't know what went into creating those numbers. Are the taxes paid by Europe for gasoline calculated in their cost estimates since some of the gasoline taxes fund healthcare? Posting WHO numbers without context doesn't create an accurate comparison.

People in MA have access but cannot get into seeing a doctor thus they go to the ER's. That is driving up costs. You keep ignoring that reality and what will happen when another 40 million are added to the roles with no infrastructure or enough working hours in the day to handle the masses.
Click to expand...

Can you find anyone who disputes that we pay more? Anyone? Anyone at all? I've given links that we do.

And don't change the subject yet. Show me someone who disputes that we pay more.
 
Boo Radley said:
Can you find anyone who disputes that we pay more? Anyone? Anyone at all? I've given links that we do.

And don't change the subject yet. Show me someone who disputes that we pay more.
Click to expand...

Your links don't define the costs that were measure. Are you telling me that all healthcare costs are calculated in the WHO study? I don't know that we pay more or not nor does it really matter. AS I posted and you continue to ignore there are costs we have that Europe doesn't have which drives up costs. Until all costs are measured your posts or anyone else regarding comparisions is moot.
 
Conservative said:
Your links don't define the costs that were measure. Are you telling me that all healthcare costs are calculated in the WHO study? I don't know that we pay more or not nor does it really matter. AS I posted and you continue to ignore there are costs we have that Europe doesn't have which drives up costs. Until all costs are measured your posts or anyone else regarding comparisions is moot.
Click to expand...

How about fact check?

It’s true that U.S. health care expenditures in 2009 accounted for more than 17 percent of the economy as measured by gross domestic product, according to a report from the Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Sunday Replay | FactCheck.org

In fact, the U.S. spends nearly $7,000 per person total, or nearly $2,500 more than the next highest-spending country, according to the most recent completed data from the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

Obama’s Health Care News Conference | FactCheck.org

You can get an overview here:

Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, instead of just throwing **** up, either dispute the facts or accept them.
 
Boo Radley said:
How about fact check?

It’s true that U.S. health care expenditures in 2009 accounted for more than 17 percent of the economy as measured by gross domestic product, according to a report from the Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Sunday Replay | FactCheck.org

In fact, the U.S. spends nearly $7,000 per person total, or nearly $2,500 more than the next highest-spending country, according to the most recent completed data from the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

Obama’s Health Care News Conference | FactCheck.org

You can get an overview here:

Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, instead of just throwing **** up, either dispute the facts or accept them.
Click to expand...

Continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the content. Why aren't you as skeptical about what goes into those cost numbers as you are passionate about buying those numbers. What goes into them? What goes into the numbers for the rest of the world? Are we comparing apples to apples? You don't know but that doesn't stop you from spreading the message.
 
Conservative said:
Continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore the content. Why aren't you as skeptical about what goes into those cost numbers as you are passionate about buying those numbers. What goes into them? What goes into the numbers for the rest of the world? Are we comparing apples to apples? You don't know but that doesn't stop you from spreading the message.
Click to expand...

Then put up some numbers to refute what Boo has posted
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Then put up some numbers to refute what Boo has posted
Click to expand...

Boo put out numbers it is up to him to identify what went into those numbers. Whether or not we pay more really is irrelevant without the costs that go into those numbers. Do other countries have the malpractice suits, illegal alien thus high ER usage, govt. regulations, and R&D costs that we have and in that quantity?
 
Conservative said:
What would be nice is you providing the data that generated the numbers you posted and really attacked the cost issue, not the access issue.
Click to expand...

I'm sure if you look at the reports linked, you can find methodology. But as I have provided links showing more than one place reaching the same conclusion, and no one disputing the numbers, I believe you're just grasping at straws.

Dispute or accept.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm sure if you look at the reports linked, you can find methodology. But as I have provided links showing more than one place reaching the same conclusion, and no one disputing the numbers, I believe you're just grasping at straws.

Dispute or accept.
Click to expand...

Ok, I accept the numbers, now what? does that make them too high because they are higher than other countries? Do other countries have high govt. regulations, high illegal use of ER's, high malpractice suits, high R&D expenses? Do the people in other countries make what Americans make? Do they have the profit incentive there that we have in this country? Do they have the same tax structure that we have?

You seem to want to pick out a number and use that number to support your point of view as you ignore the costs in those numbers and the alternative being offered
 
Conservative said:
Ok, I accept the numbers, now what? does that make them too high because they are higher than other countries? Do other countries have high govt. regulations, high illegal use of ER's, high malpractice suits, high R&D expenses? Do the people in other countries make what Americans make? Do they have the profit incentive there that we have in this country? Do they have the same tax structure that we have?

You seem to want to pick out a number and use that number to support your point of view as you ignore the costs in those numbers and the alternative being offered
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Understand the argument. We spend more, so you need another argument other than cost. So, now that you accept that we spend more, we can't object to their systems because they cost too much.

What's next on your list?
 
Boo Radley said:
Doesn't matter. Understand the argument. We spend more, so you need another argument other than cost. So, now that you accept that we spend more, we can't object to their systems because they cost too much.

What's next on your list?
Click to expand...

No, since you are making the issue cost what does Obamacare do to lower costs? It transfers costs to the states! It assumes that Medicare will be cut? it assumes that adding 40 million more will lower costs? It ignores malpractice suits, govt. regulations, illegal ER use, and what it takes to get new drugs and procedures to market in this country. That should be on your list but no where have I seen any discussion of those costs, only access. MA gave all citizens access, did their costs go down?
 
Conservative said:
No, since you are making the issue cost what does Obamacare do to lower costs? It transfers costs to the states! It assumes that Medicare will be cut? it assumes that adding 40 million more will lower costs? It ignores malpractice suits, govt. regulations, illegal ER use, and what it takes to get new drugs and procedures to market in this country. That should be on your list but no where have I seen any discussion of those costs, only access. MA gave all citizens access, did their costs go down?
Click to expand...

You're not getting what the argument is. it is about the current health care reform. You stated we couldn't conisder the systems other countries use because they cost more, you entered into the discussion with CP, and backed him that they are too expensive. We both now agree that ours costs more. So, that objection you and CP presented was valid.

Now, you want to change the subject. OK, make the change. But lets begin with, as I have told you, cost is only part of the equation. In this country some people have excellent health care. others have adequate health care, and still others have poor healthcare. Access in this coutnry is a problem, as evidenced by the big tent efforts, usually seen in third world countries, that are now seen in this country. There are numbers of people not getting adequate health care, and our system is PART of the problem (bold words so you might not miss them).

States have tackled tort reform, which hasn't effected cost all that much. Illegals, while a problem, doesn't mean we ignore other larger problems, even if they are not currently fixed. No oen is arguing that we don't address them. And the government actually already contributes heavily to new drug development. They may well do more than the private sector does. you migth investigate teaching hospitals and the government funding that goes into new drugs and research.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're not getting what the argument is. it is about the current health care reform. You stated we couldn't conisder the systems other countries use because they cost more, you entered into the discussion with CP, and backed him that they are too expensive. We both now agree that ours costs more. So, that objection you and CP presented was valid.

Now, you want to change the subject. OK, make the change. But lets begin with, as I have told you, cost is only part of the equation. In this country some people have excellent health care. others have adequate health care, and still others have poor healthcare. Access in this coutnry is a problem, as evidenced by the big tent efforts, usually seen in third world countries, that are now seen in this country. There are numbers of people not getting adequate health care, and our system is PART of the problem (bold words so you might not miss them).

States have tackled tort reform, which hasn't effected cost all that much. Illegals, while a problem, doesn't mean we ignore other larger problems, even if they are not currently fixed. No oen is arguing that we don't address them. And the government actually already contributes heavily to new drug development. They may well do more than the private sector does. you migth investigate teaching hospitals and the government funding that goes into new drugs and research.
Click to expand...

The topic of this thread is debt limit fight could be catastrophic and has emerged into a healthcare debate and I agree that Obamacare affects the debt and thus the limit. I have shown you the cost of the MA program and how ER usage is up. One of the issues liberals claim is that ER usage thus costs would come down and that hasn't happened in MA so how can it happen in this country.

I have no problem with healthcare reform but you cannot reform healthcare until all costs are indentified and addressed. You have focuses almost purely on access and there isn't an honest person alive who believes that adding 40 million more to the healthcare roles will make healthcare costs less. You have totally ignored the tough question as to how many actually require govt. healthcare help. I have no problem with open, honest discussion regarding healthcare costs and access but this legislation does nothing to lower costs at all and does nothing to increase access.

You claim that tort reform, illegals are a problem but we have larger problems. What would those be? How about the millions that are uninsured because they failed to sign up? How about the millions that stream accross our borders and contribute nothing to the Federal tax revenue? What are those bigger problems?
 
Conservative said:
Boo put out numbers it is up to him to identify what went into those numbers. Whether or not we pay more really is irrelevant without the costs that go into those numbers. Do other countries have the malpractice suits, illegal alien thus high ER usage, govt. regulations, and R&D costs that we have and in that quantity?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but we'd better find out pretty soon. The US spends significantly more than any other nation, whether you calculate it as a percentage of GDP or per capita. If we don't control costs, they're going to bankrupt us.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I don't know, but we'd better find out pretty soon. The US spends significantly more than any other nation, whether you calculate it as a percentage of GDP or per capita. If we don't control costs, they're going to bankrupt us.
Click to expand...

Most of the healthcare expenses in this country are paid for by private citizens as 85% of the people are covered. FICA taxes fund Medicaid, Medicare, and SS so comparing what other countries pay is comparing what the private sector pays to what the public sector pays and that isnt a valid comparison. Who are rising costs bankrupting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom