• 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 administration fights to save healthcare law

It is already in existence. Solzhenitsyn's writings explain the system, its deep deficits, and the inherent decay.

.

No, it isn't. You buying silliness doesn't make it true. There is no communist health care system here. Sorry. :coffeepap
 
yes. You could also have private insurance. And doctors would not be working for the government either.

ok, then what makes it a single payer system then if there are still these avenues.


j-mac
 
ok, then what makes it a single payer system then if there are still these avenues.


j-mac

Everyone has adequate care. The government pays for a minimal level of care, allowing reasonable health care for all. I've asked others to examine single payer system closer so they would know there are options and differences between them. Many a docter favors such systems. And they are largely less expensive than what we're doing now.
 
The government pays for a minimal level of care, allowing reasonable health care for all.

LOL!

you don't know what you're talking about

what an idiot

obama, i mean
 
Everyone has adequate care. The government pays for a minimal level of care, allowing reasonable health care for all. I've asked others to examine single payer system closer so they would know there are options and differences between them. Many a docter favors such systems. And they are largely less expensive than what we're doing now.

Ok, on this minimal level of care, are you talking what clinic type visits for everyday doctors visits? And of those people that can't afford the premium that everyone will have to pay regardless of whether or not you chose to use the government system, how many of them will pay for their own? Or will I have to pay for mine, and theirs?

j-mac
 
Ok, on this minimal level of care, are you talking what clinic type visits for everyday doctors visits? And of those people that can't afford the premium that everyone will have to pay regardless of whether or not you chose to use the government system, how many of them will pay for their own? Or will I have to pay for mine, and theirs?

j-mac

Certianly doctor visits would be included, but needed emergent and hospital care would also be included. Elective stuff not so much.

All would have this covered and paid for by our taxes. If you want more, you pay more. And this would come out of your pocket. If you're happy with the minimal, you don't need to pay for more.
 
the minimal...

LOL!

in a discussion of health care plans

what an idiot

obama, i mean
 
Certianly doctor visits would be included, but needed emergent and hospital care would also be included. Elective stuff not so much.

All would have this covered and paid for by our taxes. If you want more, you pay more. And this would come out of your pocket. If you're happy with the minimal, you don't need to pay for more.

Ok, so much like the public school system, if I want my child to go to a private school, then I not only pay my tax for the public infrastructure, but have to pay for private school as well.

Tell me though, why should I have to pay for someone elses health care?

j-mac
 
Ok, so much like the public school system, if I want my child to go to a private school, then I not only pay my tax for the public infrastructure, but have to pay for private school as well.

Tell me though, why should I have to pay for someone elses health care?

j-mac
Can be doesn't ahve to be. You don't have to pay for the same coverage twice. Instead, and it is what i would do, I would pay for where the government system left off. It would be kind of silly to double pay.
 
Can be doesn't ahve to be. You don't have to pay for the same coverage twice. Instead, and it is what i would do, I would pay for where the government system left off. It would be kind of silly to double pay.

Ok, but why should I have to pay for those that don't? According to reports 47% of people right now pay nothing for taxes, so they are taking my labor to cover their possible bad habbits.


j-mac
 
Ok, but why should I have to pay for those that don't? According to reports 47% of people right now pay nothing for taxes, so they are taking my labor to cover their possible bad habbits.


j-mac

you pay for them now, before reform. Everytime you pay an insurance premium or a hospital bill, you pay for them. At least this way we would have more oversight and know exactly how much we're paying for them.
 
not in the united states, chairman

have you MET mr boehner
 
Noone is able to "get out" of the law. They are only able to postpone having to follow it for a short time. It was smart of the Obama admin to have this waiver process for anyone that needs more time to comply. It's a common process with many laws. At the end of the day it will apply to unions also so i don't know why any honest person would complain that it favors unions when there are businesses that are receiving the exact same waiver.

everyone already knows the Unions get whatthey want from liberals, hasnt stopped them yet...

Obamacare is a disaster, its welfare on grand scale, and bad for an already broke country econmically speaking..
we cant afford it, its another handout. reform indeed
 
LOL!

single payer is non starter

here

in america

which is a very good thing, since it's so "devastating and cruel" in england

do you KNOW mr boehner
 
everyone already knows the Unions get whatthey want from liberals, hasnt stopped them yet...

Obamacare is a disaster, its welfare on grand scale, and bad for an already broke country econmically speaking..
we cant afford it, its another handout. reform indeed
Conservatives are evil that just want to belittle the wroking class even more. They hate poor people. They want poor to die on the streets rather than get medical care. They hate veterans. They are anti-american. They're all racist.

Ohhh, I beat you. You only squeezed in 6 talking points and i managed 7. I assumed thats what your goal was... ya know... just squeeze in as many worthless talking points as possible into one post...
 
Conservatives are evil that just want to belittle the wroking class even more. They hate poor people. They want poor to die on the streets rather than get medical care. They hate veterans. They are anti-american. They're all racist.

Ohhh, I beat you. You only squeezed in 6 talking points and i managed 7. I assumed thats what your goal was... ya know... just squeeze in as many worthless talking points as possible into one post...

chew on this, smarta$$

bottom line, and I try to "bottom line" everything, makes so much more sense than arguing opinions.

Any time you promote the same product to everyone but at a different cost depending on circumstance, thats called redistribution of income. Namely the income of the ones that are paying the rest of the bills anyway.

if you cant see the possibilties and almost assuredness of abuse that will be attached to Obamacare, then the horse has been led to water but cant make you drink.

SIngle payer system based on a percentage of ones income I'm ok with, bring it on.
But I pay 8200.oo a year for health insurance, and if this thing passes I will still be paying 8200.oo a year, and millions will have near identical coverage for pennies on the dollar in comparison... explain the fairness of that.
 
I say scrap the Republican idea of requiring people to purchase insurance, which Obama included to appease the moderate Republicans.....and go back to the Democratic public option, which was far superior to the Republican idea.
 
I say scrap the Republican idea of requiring people to purchase insurance, which Obama included to appease the moderate Republicans.....and go back to the Democratic public option, which was far superior to the Republican idea.

The public option would be a better. I agree.
 
First off, to Zimmer:

If you're going to use someone else's commentary to support your argument, I think it only fair and wise that you USE THE ENTIRE QUOTE so that people can fully understand the context of your argument. Towit, I'm referring to your post #22:

LA: Many Middle Eastern societies have a kind of tribal or theocratic basis and long-held habits of despotic rule that make it difficult to establish a system of contract between strangers. Is it your view that the introduction of free markets in such places could overcome those obstacles?

MF: Eventually, yes. I think that nothing is so important for freedom as recognizing in the law each individual's natural right to property, and giving individuals a sense that they own something that they're responsible for, that they have control over, and that they can dispose of.

LA: Is there an area here in the United States in which we have not been as aggressive as we should in promoting property rights and free markets?

MF: Yes, in the field of medical care. We have a socialist-communist system of distributing medical care. Instead of letting people hire their own physicians and pay them, no one pays his or her own medical bills. Instead, there's a third party payment system. It is a communist system and it has a communist result. Despite this, we've had numerous miracles in medical science. From the discovery of penicillin, to new surgical techniques, to MRIs and CAT scans, the last 30 or 40 years have been a period of miraculous change in medical science. On the other hand, we've seen costs skyrocket. Nobody is happy: physicians don't like it, patients don't like it. Why? Because none of them are responsible for themselves. You no longer have a situation in which a patient chooses a physician, receives a service, gets charged, and pays for it. There is no direct relation between the patient and the physician. The physician is an employee of an insurance company or an employee of the government. Today, a third party pays the bills. As a result, no one who visits the doctor asks what the charge is going to be—somebody else is going to take care of that. The end result is third party payment and, worst of all, third party treatment.

LA: Following the recent expansion in prescription drug benefits and Medicare, what hope is there for a return to the free market in medical care?

MF: It does seem that markets are on the defensive, but there is hope. The expansion of drug benefits was accompanied by the introduction of health savings accounts—HSAs. That's the one hopeful sign in the medical area, because it's a step in the direction of making people responsible for themselves and for their own care. No one spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own.

Clearly, Milton Friedman wasn't talking about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act nor the provision that mandates that those individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance do so or pay a fine. He was talking about the health care system as a whole. Now, if you want to get technical, what Mr. Friedman proposes - that aspect of "giving individuals a sense that they own something that they're responsible for", that IS the individual mandate right there because it is only those individuals who can afford health insurance but refuse to purchase it that in Friedman's who words are NOT taking responsibility for themselves when they have the means to do so.

As to whether or not PPACA is constitutional or unconstitutional, I'll be posting further on this issue in the coming days, but I think people should first review these two linked articles before going any further with this discussion:

1) Testimony from Charles Fried, Beneficial Professor of Law, Harvard Law School and former Solicitor General under former President Ronald Reagan

2) Signed statement by 130 law professors declaring the constitutionality of the PPACA.

Read...learn...comprehend the full scoup of the health care problem in this nation, set aside your partisanship and then let's have a real discussion on this issue.
 
I say scrap

few care what you do or don't say, especially when it's all fantasy

the Republican idea of requiring people to purchase insurance, which Obama included to appease the moderate Republicans

LOL!

that's why olympia snowe and susan collins and george voinovich, et al, voted zero to unanimous AGAINST obamacare

that's why scott brown ran and won TEDDY KENNEDY'S SEAT as committed #41

that's why obamacare had to be RECONCILED

you're just gonna have to live it, libs, love it

it's all yours, obamacare

...and go back to the Democratic public option, which was far superior to the Republican idea.

like i said, a fantasy

ask kent conrad, your still BUDGET CHAIR

Democratic senator: Public health insurance option dead – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Conrad Says He'll Vote Against The Public Option | TPMDC

public option today is exactly as conceivable here in reality as cap and trade

but don't let that stop you from making your wish

what are your other two?
 
The public option would be a better

you don't know KENT CONRAD either?

LOL!

cuz if you aint got the BUDGET CHAIR, well, you're pretty far out there
 
Back
Top Bottom