• 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"

Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

How you pay for it means very little. You either pay more, or you pay less. And they are valid comparisons. The issue is which costs more. The only factor is the cost.
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

You brough the discussion from the other thread to this one, not me. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
How you pay for it means very little. You either pay more, or you pay less. And they are valid comparisons. The issue is which costs more. The only factor is the cost.
Click to expand...

You have yet to prove that Obamacare will lower costs nor have you addressed the actual number that cannot afford healthcare and really need taxpayer help.
 
Conservative said:
You have yet to prove that Obamacare will lower costs nor have you addressed the actual number that cannot afford healthcare and really need taxpayer help.
Click to expand...

I haven't claimed present health care will control costs. Nor do I need to prove the number who can't afford health care. As those who can afford health care, will not meet the standard we set, whatever that is, and thus will have to pay for their own, this is not really a bone of contention. only those who can prove need, based on the standard CONGRESS establishes, will recieve government aid. All others have to pay their own premiums.
 
Boo Radley said:
I haven't claimed present health care will control costs. Nor do I need to prove the number who can't afford health care. As those who can afford health care, will not meet the standard we set, whatever that is, and thus will have to pay for their own, this is not really a bone of contention. only those who can prove need, based on the standard CONGRESS establishes, will recieve government aid. All others have to pay their own premiums.
Click to expand...

If the healtcare bill will not control costs why implement it? MA has proven that access alone doesn't control costs.
 
Conservative said:
If the healtcare bill will not control costs why implement it? MA has proven that access alone doesn't control costs.
Click to expand...

For me, two reasons:

1) It improves access. Later it may effect costs postitively.

2) It's a start. You can't take step two if you don't take step one. I have never considered this a finished proposition.
 
Boo Radley said:
For me, two reasons:

1) It improves access. Later it may effect costs postitively.

2) It's a start. You can't take step two if you don't take step one. I have never considered this a finished proposition.
Click to expand...

Costs are up because ER usage is up, case closed! People having access cannot get into a doctor's office thus go to the ER's. That of course wouldn't happen under Obamacare, right?
 
Conservative said:
Costs are up because ER usage is up, case closed! People having access cannot get into a doctor's office thus go to the ER's. That of course wouldn't happen under Obamacare, right?
Click to expand...

Up from when? Support your claim. Nation wide.

And no, the national situation isn't equal to MA if that is what you're trying to say. Remember, national reform encourages more doctors.
 
Conservative said:
Costs are up because ER usage is up, case closed! People having access cannot get into a doctor's office thus go to the ER's. That of course wouldn't happen under Obamacare, right?
Click to expand...

BTW, just checking: You do realize your response has nothing to do with the question you asked or my answer?
 
Boo Radley said:
Up from when? Support your claim. Nation wide.

And no, the national situation isn't equal to MA if that is what you're trying to say. Remember, national reform encourages more doctors.
Click to expand...

MA, try to keep up, that is the only state that has anything close to Obamacare. Access doesn't lower costs as MA is showing.

Where are the benefits to becoming a doctor under Obamacare? Incentive is what makes people want to be doctors not Obamacare.
 
Boo Radley said:
BTW, just checking: You do realize your response has nothing to do with the question you asked or my answer?
Click to expand...

Comprehension seems to not be your strong suit. Access does not mean lower costs as MA is showing.
 
Conservative said:
Comprehension seems to not be your strong suit. Access does not mean lower costs as MA is showing.
Click to expand...

Never claimed it did. Who has comprehension problems? :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Never claimed it did. Who has comprehension problems? :coffeepap
Click to expand...

So your entire argument is access and not costs? Why then are you quoting WHO and making an issue out off what Americans pay in healthcare and it being higher than any country in the world? If access is the issue then do we really need Obamacare?
 
Conservative said:
So your entire argument is access and not costs? Why then are you quoting WHO and making an issue out off what Americans pay in healthcare and it being higher than any country in the world? If access is the issue then do we really need Obamacare?
Click to expand...

No. Two part. I keep telling you that. The best thing about the current reform is that it helps with access (not cure or completely fix the probklem). Later, as we refine and keep working on it, we have a chance to get to costs. But if cost was really our focus, we'd seek a universal payer. That would effect cost much better than the current reform.
 
Boo Radley;1059216549]No. Two part. I keep telling you that. The best thing about the current reform is that it helps with access (not cure or completely fix the probklem).
Click to expand...

Everyone in this country has access now, and as it appears MA with complete access is using the same facilities as the rest of the nation without national healthcare, the ER's. Why would you overburden the current system and in the process create an bigger govt. bureaucracy to manage it?

Later, as we refine and keep working on it, we have a chance to get to costs. But if cost was really our focus, we'd seek a universal payer. That would effect cost much better than the current reform.
Click to expand...


There you go again ignoring the failures of a single payer system now. Waste, fraud, and abuse cost billions and I am still waiting for you to explain why Europe is getting away from their healthcare system and trying to privatize it.

I think you are very naive when it comes to addressing problems. The first step should be to identify costs and work to reduce them. Only then do you truly understand the scope of the problem. Throughout this and other threads you have focused on costs and ignored the MA performance or even what is going on in Europe. You really must be tied to the govt. and thus looking for personal gain
 
Conservative said:
Everyone in this country has access now, and as it appears MA with complete access is using the same facilities as the rest of the nation without national healthcare, the ER's. Why would you overburden the current system and in the process create an bigger govt. bureaucracy to manage it?
Click to expand...

No, factually, everyone does not have complete access, not even in MA. And if the system can't bear complete access, than as the nation Bill encourages, the system needs more doctors. Remember, the current level of doctors is held down by the AMA and not the market. The current national reform helps to encourage more doctors. So, not only do you over state the problem, but seek the wrong solutions, suggesting less access would make the country better. That doesn't make sense to me at all.



There you go again ignoring the failures of a single payer system now. Waste, fraud, and abuse cost billions and I am still waiting for you to explain why Europe is getting away from their healthcare system and trying to privatize it.

I think you are very naive when it comes to addressing problems. The first step should be to identify costs and work to reduce them. Only then do you truly understand the scope of the problem. Throughout this and other threads you have focused on costs and ignored the MA performance or even what is going on in Europe. You really must be tied to the govt. and thus looking for personal gain
Click to expand...

We have those same problems here, in both the public and private sector. So, exactly what is your point? Do you know a system that doesn't have those problems? I don't. And we have them while paying more than the single payer system does.

So, no one has ignored anything, aand no one is nieve, . . . .unless it is you?
 
Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

The employers, the private citizens who purchase individual policies, the people who have substandard insurance then have a catastrophic illness or accident, the government, anyone who pays for medical bills. What I'm talking about is not the private sector's cost, not the public sector's cost, but the entire cost. It is a drag on the economy is many different ways.
 
Chappy said:
It really doesn't matter who you blame for it, the debt ceiling will be increased by the 112th Congress because failure to do so would be a failure to govern this nation responsibly.

“We are required to do this now in order to avoid a national fiscal calamity.” — Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey¹​
Click to expand...

It appears that you and I fundamentallydisagree on the definition of "responsibly". Dick Armey was wrong then and anyone who supports raising the debt ceiling now is wrong!
 
Boo Radley said:
No, factually, everyone does not have complete access, not even in MA. And if the system can't bear complete access, than as the nation Bill encourages, the system needs more doctors. Remember, the current level of doctors is held down by the AMA and not the market. The current national reform helps to encourage more doctors. So, not only do you over state the problem, but seek the wrong solutions, suggesting less access would make the country better. That doesn't make sense to me at all.





We have those same problems here, in both the public and private sector. So, exactly what is your point? Do you know a system that doesn't have those problems? I don't. And we have them while paying more than the single payer system does.

So, no one has ignored anything, aand no one is nieve, . . . .unless it is you?
Click to expand...

Yet your solution is a single payer and a national program? it is a local problem and thus local solutions are required. There is no reason for the Federal Govt. to get involved and that is the point. Anyone that believes a single payer system is the way to go with Medicare and SS being examples shouldn't be calling anyone else naive.
 
Conservative said:
Yet your solution is a single payer and a national program? it is a local problem and thus local solutions are required. There is no reason for the Federal Govt. to get involved and that is the point. Anyone that believes a single payer system is the way to go with Medicare and SS being examples shouldn't be calling anyone else naive.
Click to expand...

It's a national problem. You do realize that national problems are felt locally as well. They are not two different places?
 
MrVicchio said:
So, the real problem is the sacred cows being too costly, economically. But to "touch them" is politically too expensive. So what you're saying is, we're ****ed either way. You do realize that Social Spending far outstrips defense don't you?
Click to expand...

Yes, and defense spending is justified to... er, defend! The purpose of our federal government should be primarily to protect and defend... not wipe the asses of those who will not do it themselves!
 
Dittohead not! said:
The employers, the private citizens who purchase individual policies, the people who have substandard insurance then have a catastrophic illness or accident, the government, anyone who pays for medical bills. What I'm talking about is not the private sector's cost, not the public sector's cost, but the entire cost. It is a drag on the economy is many different ways.
Click to expand...

How are healthcare costs affecting you, your family, or the economy? I keep hearing about the drain on the economy, what drain? Where are healthcare costs measured in GDP calculations? Right now healthcare costs are where they belong, with the individual. My entire point is that healthcare is personal and is best handled by the individual with the help of the state, local communities, and charities if necessary. The Federal Govt. does nothing well and all this focus on expansion of that govt. is a huge mistake and ignores history. there is nothing in Obamacare that reduces public sector costs therefore why do it?
 
Boo Radley said:
It's a national problem. You do realize that national problems are felt locally as well. They are not two different places?
Click to expand...

The only national problem that is the Federal Governments responsibility is Defense, not healthcare. 20 states plus are challenging Obamacare, the states don't want it so why do you? Democrats took a shellacking on November 2 nationally and at the state level. Seems the majority in this country disagree with you.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The employers, the private citizens who purchase individual policies, the people who have substandard insurance then have a catastrophic illness or accident, the government, anyone who pays for medical bills. What I'm talking about is not the private sector's cost, not the public sector's cost, but the entire cost. It is a drag on the economy is many different ways.
Click to expand...

What do you mean drag on "the economy"?

Isn't "the economy" just an aggregate of statistics pulled from individuals and corporations (run and owned by individuals)? Isn't every expense a drag, including the worst drag...taxes?
 
Conservative said:
The only national problem that is the Federal Governments responsibility is Defense, not healthcare. 20 states plus are challenging Obamacare, the states don't want it so why do you? Democrats took a shellacking on November 2 nationally and at the state level. Seems the majority in this country disagree with you.
Click to expand...

That hasn't been true since shortly after inception of this country. We, the people, who are the government, have used the government as a tool to do many things other than defense from nearly day one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom