• 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!

New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

Conservative said:
Aw, give me a break, Bush was in office 8 months when 9/11 happened and Clinton had been in office 6 years when he got the memo. Stop showing your true liberal ignorance. Within the law what could Bush have done in those 8 months? Your total ignorance of the law is quite telling.

Only a liberal believes Saddam Hussein and his evil sons in charge would have created less harm than removing him.
Click to expand...

He still got the memo and took no action. Can't change the facts to suit you.

And yes, removing Saddam cost at least 100,000 lives, displaced millions, put Christians under persecution who were not before, helped Iran, helped our enemies (who wanted Saddam overthrown). Remember, it was to appease the Shia, who are now in charge, that Saddam send money to Palestine to rebuild the homes of the families of suicide bombers. So, while I won't defend Saddam, let's not pretend we brought paradise to Iraq or helped ourselves much at all.
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't confuse things. Not putting the country through the fight charges would bring doesn't mean Bush wasn't wrong. The facts show that.
Click to expand...

The facts show a lot of people wrong in this country and around the world. The facts also will show that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do and the world is better off without him.

The reason that the Democrats didn't bring charges is because they know what a trial would prove and they would rather have the issue and people like you than the actual facts presented. I would have loved to have watched the trial.

Read the Lord Butler Report and get back to me.

http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/hc/hc898/898.pdf

Then there is this

Myths of Iraq War
TheReligionofPeace - Top Iraqi War Myths
 
Boo Radley said:
He still got the memo and took no action. Can't change the facts to suit you.

And yes, removing Saddam cost at least 100,000 lives, displaced millions, put Christians under persecution who were not before, helped Iran, helped our enemies (who wanted Saddam overthrown). Remember, it was to appease the Shia, who are now in charge, that Saddam send money to Palestine to rebuild the homes of the families of suicide bombers. So, while I won't defend Saddam, let's not pretend we brought paradise to Iraq or helped ourselves much at all.
Click to expand...

Ok, smart guy tell me what Bush could have done under the law? You simply haven't a clue.

After a close election and the legal challenges what do you think the public would have done had Bush shutdown the airports and prevent 9/11. How could he prove he prevented 9/11? Shutting down the airports would have been perceived as a political ploy to detract from the "stolen" election.
 
Conservative said:
Ok, smart guy tell me what Bush could have done under the law? You simply haven't a clue.

After a close election and the legal challenges what do you think the public would have done had Bush shutdown the airports and prevent 9/11. How could he prove he prevented 9/11? Shutting down the airports would have been perceived as a political ploy to detract from the "stolen" election.
Click to expand...

He did not have to invade any country. From day one he could have taken the memo seriously. Argued for breaking down the walls between the CIA and the FBI. That was really all that needed to be done to help keep us safe.

But, he could have used the good will 9/11 gave us to actually build partnerships that would limit Al Qaeda's effectiveness and quietly gone after them, not allowing them to use our over reaction against us, thus reducing recruits and training they gained in fighting us in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Being smart and cool is not a vise. Being reckless and stupid is.
 
Boo Radley said:
He did not have to invade any country. From day one he could have taken the memo seriously. Argued for breaking down the walls between the CIA and the FBI. That was really all that needed to be done to help keep us safe.

But, he could have used the good will 9/11 gave us to actually build partnerships that would limit Al Qaeda's effectiveness and quietly gone after them, not allowing them to use our over reaction against us, thus reducing recruits and training they gained in fighting us in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Being smart and cool is not a vise. Being reckless and stupid is.
Click to expand...

You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Not one thing you mentioned could have happened in 8 months nor would anything you mentioned stopped 9/11.

Bush didn't invade Iraq until 1 1/2 years after 9/11. Your time line is screwed up as are your comments. Didn't read the Lord Butler report I see or anything else that has been posted about world intelligence reports on Iraq.

I had two family members serve in Iraq with one in Military intelligence. After serving two terms in Iraq he says to this day we were right in removing Saddam Hussein. David Kay apparently agreed with him.

Kay on Today: "It Was Absolutely Prudent to Go to War Against Saddam" (Remarkable New Info)
 
I was thrilled to see Saddam removed from power. He was an evil dictator.

The question is whether it was in U.S. vital interests to do so. There are lots of dictators and evil regimes out there, yet we don't spend money and lives removing them all. Why Iraq?

The war was sold to us as a necessity to protect us from WMDs - not to liberate the people of Iraq. That justification came after the fact, once it was clear there were no WMDs.
 
I love the expert after the fact analysis going on here...just remove the wall between FBI and CIA, that's all that was needed. Instead, Bush started a war. Hysterical, if not downright foolish. That wall was the creation of the Clinton administration explicitly to prevent foreign intelligence from tainting domestic criminal prosecutions. Clinton made that choice. Bush wasn't going to change that in mere months, just as Obama wasn't going to change Gitmo, Iraq, etc. in mere months despite his explicit promises.

And the PDB...are you people serious? This ain't a serious point. Bush was supposed to what? Take a generalized threat assessment that had been floating around for years and...well?

And can someone please post something resembling evidence that that universal health care systems are less costly, provide improved care, and provide truly universal coverage. Seems some posters are content with spouting it but bring nothign to the table.

And...how is measuring whether everyone has coverage a proper metric for comparing health care service models? Universal care systems don't cover everyone anyway...just ask the 15,000 French that died during a mild heatwave, or the Canadians traveling to Detroit, NYC, Portland, etc for treatment, those Brits denied care by their so-called NICE people.

We spend a lot have far anbd away better health care outcomes. Sure, liberal ninnies focus on infant mortality, life expectancy which are wholly improper measures of health system efficacy.
 
misterman said:
I was thrilled to see Saddam removed from power. He was an evil dictator.

The question is whether it was in U.S. vital interests to do so. There are lots of dictators and evil regimes out there, yet we don't spend money and lives removing them all. Why Iraq?

The war was sold to us as a necessity to protect us from WMDs - not to liberate the people of Iraq. That justification came after the fact, once it was clear there were no WMDs.
Click to expand...

Oh, please, lie much?

Clinton declared regime change US national security policy on 1998. Bush pushed for the war on four bases: wmd and wmd development (which every western intelligence agency agreed Saddam possessed and intended to continue developing); support for terrorism; continued violation of UN resolutions; and humanitarian grounds, including liberating the Iraqi people.

Bush spoke about this on October 7, 2002 in Cincinnati, Ohio. Not, as you falsely claim, either deliberately or ignorantly, after no wmds were found.

Please do not pretend that this war was predicated only on wmds.

Bush made the case that Iraq posed a unique threat given those four facts. Don't pretend otherwise.
 
Nobody can sink HC unless we offer less.

People live too long, which increases their cost. Only the very rich could afford to cover these cost alone.

Medicine continues to sky rocket. How can we stop this development. Not every new medicine is really better

new methods in medicine ie heart surgery continue to sky rocket. Consumers want the best medicine possible, but nobody can afford this. So whats the anser?

HC must either offer less, or your taxpayers dollars must close the gap.
 
Conservative Sword said:
Please do not pretend that this war was predicated only on wmds.
Click to expand...

Quite right, Cheney and his oil company friends decided two years before the invasion of Iraq, our purpose of invasion and regime change:

"So, we come to the report’s central dilemma: the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience."

"This Independent Task Force Report outlines some of the hard choices that should be considered and recommends specific policy approaches to secure the energy future of the United States. These choices will affect other U.S. policy objectives: U.S. policy toward the Middle East...."


"U.S. strategic energy policy must prioritize and coordinate domestic and foreign policy choices and objectives, where possible."

"This executive summary and the full report address the following questions. What are the potential effects of the critical energy situation for the United States? How did this critical energy situation arise? What are the U.S. policy options to deal with the energy situation? What should the United States do now?"

"it is clear that energy disruptions could have a potentially enormous impact on the U.S. and the world economy, and would affect U.S. national security and foreign policy in dramatic ways."

"An accident on the Alaska pipeline that brings the bulk of North Slope crude oil to market would have the same impact as a revolution cutting off supplies from a major Middle East oil producer."

"And with spare capacity scarce and Middle East tensions high, chances are greater than at any point in the last two decades of an oil supply disruption that would even more severely test the nation’s security and prosperity."

"What are the U.S. policy options to deal with the energy situation?"

"the United States could develop a comprehensive and balanced energy security policy with near-term actions and long-term initiatives addressing both the supply side and demand side including diversification of energy supply resources, which would enable the United States to escape from a pattern of recurring energy crises."

"More flexible environmental regulation and opening of more federal lands to drilling might slow but cannot stop this process."

"For the most part, U.S. international oil policy has relied on maintenance of free access to Middle East Gulf oil and free access for Gulf exports to world markets."

"These Gulf allies are finding their domestic and foreign policy interests increasingly at odds with U.S. strategic considerations, especially as Arab-Israeli tensions flare. They have become less inclined to lower oil prices in exchange for security of markets, and evidence suggests that investment is not being made in a timely enough manner to increase production capacity in line with growing global needs. A trend toward anti-Americanism could affect regional leaders’ ability to cooperate with the United States in the energy area."

"The August 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait witnessed a major test of global energy security."

" Bitter perceptions in the Arab world that the United States has not been evenhanded in brokering peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have exacerbated these pressures on Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and given political leverage to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to lobby for support among the Arab world’s populations."

"A reopening of these areas to foreign investment could make a critical difference in providing surplus supplies to markets in the coming decade."

"To guarantee that mechanisms are in place for warding off and, if necessary, for managing disruptions to energy supply."

"The Gulf nations have one major asset—their oil and gas reserves. "

"It is also in the strategic interest of the United States to assure that appropriate national and international mechanisms are in place to prevent disruptions in energy supplies where possible, and to manage efficiently and equitably any disruption that might occur."

"Providing adequate safeguards, both at home and abroad, against energy supply disruptions and against manipulation of markets by any party, state or private."

"Over the past year, Iraq has effectively become a swing producer, turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so."

"Still, the IEA must be assured of efficient joint decision-making in the event of a supply disruption under tight market conditions. This includes any possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time..."

"The administration needs to ensure that recent events do not derail this past success."

"Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets."

"The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments."

"Once an arms-control program is in place, the United States could consider reducing restrictions on oil investments inside Iraq. Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade."

"Another problem with easing restrictions on the Iraqi oil industry to allow greater investment is that GCC allies of the United States will not like to see Iraq gain larger market share in international oil markets."

"Middle East Gulf crude oil currently makes up around 25 percent of world oil supply, but could rise to 30–40 percent during the next decade as the region’s key producers pursue higher investments to capture expanding demand for oil in Asia and the developing world. If political factors were to block the development of new oil fields in the Gulf, the ramifications for world oil markets could be quite severe."

"While there is no question that this investment is vitally important to U.S. interests, there is strong opposition to any such reopening among key segments of the Saudi and Kuwaiti populations."

"More oil could likely be brought into the market place in the coming years if oil-field development could be enhanced by participation of U.S. companies in countries where such investments are currently banned"

STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES
 
Catawba said:
Quite right, Cheney and his oil company friends decided two years before the invasion of Iraq, our purpose of invasion and regime change:

"So, we come to the report’s central dilemma: the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience."

"This Independent Task Force Report outlines some of the hard choices that should be considered and recommends specific policy approaches to secure the energy future of the United States. These choices will affect other U.S. policy objectives: U.S. policy toward the Middle East...."


"U.S. strategic energy policy must prioritize and coordinate domestic and foreign policy choices and objectives, where possible."

"This executive summary and the full report address the following questions. What are the potential effects of the critical energy situation for the United States? How did this critical energy situation arise? What are the U.S. policy options to deal with the energy situation? What should the United States do now?"

"it is clear that energy disruptions could have a potentially enormous impact on the U.S. and the world economy, and would affect U.S. national security and foreign policy in dramatic ways."

"An accident on the Alaska pipeline that brings the bulk of North Slope crude oil to market would have the same impact as a revolution cutting off supplies from a major Middle East oil producer."

"And with spare capacity scarce and Middle East tensions high, chances are greater than at any point in the last two decades of an oil supply disruption that would even more severely test the nation’s security and prosperity."

"What are the U.S. policy options to deal with the energy situation?"

"the United States could develop a comprehensive and balanced energy security policy with near-term actions and long-term initiatives addressing both the supply side and demand side including diversification of energy supply resources, which would enable the United States to escape from a pattern of recurring energy crises."

"More flexible environmental regulation and opening of more federal lands to drilling might slow but cannot stop this process."

"For the most part, U.S. international oil policy has relied on maintenance of free access to Middle East Gulf oil and free access for Gulf exports to world markets."

"These Gulf allies are finding their domestic and foreign policy interests increasingly at odds with U.S. strategic considerations, especially as Arab-Israeli tensions flare. They have become less inclined to lower oil prices in exchange for security of markets, and evidence suggests that investment is not being made in a timely enough manner to increase production capacity in line with growing global needs. A trend toward anti-Americanism could affect regional leaders’ ability to cooperate with the United States in the energy area."

"The August 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait witnessed a major test of global energy security."

" Bitter perceptions in the Arab world that the United States has not been evenhanded in brokering peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have exacerbated these pressures on Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and given political leverage to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to lobby for support among the Arab world’s populations."

"A reopening of these areas to foreign investment could make a critical difference in providing surplus supplies to markets in the coming decade."

"To guarantee that mechanisms are in place for warding off and, if necessary, for managing disruptions to energy supply."

"The Gulf nations have one major asset—their oil and gas reserves. "

"It is also in the strategic interest of the United States to assure that appropriate national and international mechanisms are in place to prevent disruptions in energy supplies where possible, and to manage efficiently and equitably any disruption that might occur."

"Providing adequate safeguards, both at home and abroad, against energy supply disruptions and against manipulation of markets by any party, state or private."

"Over the past year, Iraq has effectively become a swing producer, turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so."

"Still, the IEA must be assured of efficient joint decision-making in the event of a supply disruption under tight market conditions. This includes any possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time..."

"The administration needs to ensure that recent events do not derail this past success."

"Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets."

"The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments."

"Once an arms-control program is in place, the United States could consider reducing restrictions on oil investments inside Iraq. Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade."

"Another problem with easing restrictions on the Iraqi oil industry to allow greater investment is that GCC allies of the United States will not like to see Iraq gain larger market share in international oil markets."

"Middle East Gulf crude oil currently makes up around 25 percent of world oil supply, but could rise to 30–40 percent during the next decade as the region’s key producers pursue higher investments to capture expanding demand for oil in Asia and the developing world. If political factors were to block the development of new oil fields in the Gulf, the ramifications for world oil markets could be quite severe."

"While there is no question that this investment is vitally important to U.S. interests, there is strong opposition to any such reopening among key segments of the Saudi and Kuwaiti populations."

"More oil could likely be brought into the market place in the coming years if oil-field development could be enhanced by participation of U.S. companies in countries where such investments are currently banned"

STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES
Click to expand...


Here we are 7 years after the invasion of Iraq on a thread about healthcare and people like you continue to divert from anything that is against this current President to focus on topics you do not understand or simply want to ignore.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 advocated regime change, Bush carried out that policy.

After 9/11 the world changed and there were a number of reasons listed to go into Iraq in the resolution that passed the Democrat Controlled Senate.

No matter what is posted you aren't going to buy it so instead of getting over it you are going to continue to try and relive it. I feel sorry for people like you who have such a naive approach to world affairs that carries over into domestic policy where it is better to react than be proactive on any issue.

Nothing you posted here serves any purpose so carry on with your BDS.
 
HC can be listed under the General Welfare of society. Healthy people are more productive than sick people, thus universal HC for all, even children!

Lets expand our system to Canada, perhaps that would lower the price per head?
 
bennyhill said:
HC can be listed under the General Welfare of society. Healthy people are more productive than sick people, thus universal HC for all, even children!

Lets expand our system to Canada, perhaps that would lower the price per head?
Click to expand...

More productive for whom? We have or maybe had a private sector economy thus if that is the case that healthy people are more productive than sick people then it would behoove private industry to take on that responsibility not the Federal govt.

Healthcare is a personal responsibility, not a public responsibility and all the comments from people who support the govt. getting involved fail to recognize that. They also fail to recognize the failure of the govt. to do anyting cost effectively or effeciently yet that doesn't stop them from showing their arrogance believing we can just throw more money at the problem.
 
I see we disagree, but thats not surprising.

One could demand that all companies provide HC for there employees. I know that many do, but not all. Then the government would be out of the HC business although the poor need a minimum coverage.

I suggest the government set the guidlines for private HC and they can decide if the want to offer more or not. HC for workers would be tied to there wages. The more you make the more you pay. Thats solidarity with your fellow man. Conservates hate Jesus, when it means spending there money on the meek, but lifes a bitch and then you die.

This system works in other countries more or less.
 
bennyhill said:
I see we disagree, but thats not surprising.

One could demand that all companies provide HC for there employees. I know that many do, but not all. Then the government would be out of the HC business although the poor need a minimum coverage.

I suggest the government set the guidlines for private HC and they can decide if the want to offer more or not. HC for workers would be tied to there wages. The more you make the more you pay. Thats solidarity with your fellow man. Conservates hate Jesus, when it means spending there money on the meek, but lifes a bitch and then you die.

This system works in other countries more or less.
Click to expand...


We apparently disagree on the role of the govt. in private business. Your argument is typical of someone that doesn't understand free enterprise and capitalism thus would willing destroy what made this country great.

The govt. has no business setting private business guidelines as the govt. cannot even run their own business. We live in a country where over 85% of the people have health insurance and 100% have access to healthcare. Because of incentive and the opportunity to create wealth our economy used to be the envy of the world, that is until liberals got hold of it and began their social engineering.

You believe healthcare works in other countries but don't know for sure thus you just spout what you are told. If you want this country to be like others then you want low economic growth, high unemployment, relatively low wages, and high taxes.

I spent 35 years in the business world and your opinions are very naive and inaccurate. It is not the role of the govt. to provide personal responsibility programs and our founders realized that thus there is no mention of healthcare in the Constitution. What you eat, how you live, and what you drink has an affect on your healthcare. That makes healthcare a personal responsibility. I don't expect you to pay for my insurance nor do I expect to pay for yours.

If you want to solve the healthcare problem in this country, then the current bill DOES NOT do that.
 
I accept free enterprise, but I want rules to protect the consumer and workers against exploitation.

You have atomic energy plants in America. I understand Obama want to build two more. Who past for disposing of atomic waste and who pays when there is a meltdown and thousands of people die or the earth is contaminated?

My guess is the taxpayer? If im right, then doesnt he have a right to cheap electricity and shouldnt the profit from these plants be reinvested in green energy and save waste disposing?
 
bennyhill said:
I accept free enterprise, but I want rules to protect the consumer and workers against exploitation.

You have atomic energy plants in America. I understand Obama want to build two more. Who past for disposing of atomic waste and who pays when there is a meltdown and thousands of people die or the earth is contaminated?

My guess is the taxpayer? If im right, then doesnt he have a right to cheap electricity and shouldnt the profit from these plants be reinvested in green energy and save waste disposing?
Click to expand...

No, you want selective free enterprise thus the cafeteria approach to free enterprise. You also ignore all the regulations that businesses operate under today many of which drive up the true costs of healthcare.

The taxpayer pays for everything the govt. does and so far has funded the massive waste, fraud, and abuse there yet many want to expand their role into healthcare. That is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again yet expecting a different result.

The largest employer in the nation is the govt. and it currently is a 3.8 trillion dollar govt. today. Where is the outrage? Too many people today ignore that reality and willingly give them more control and support the massive growth in size.
 
The deficit is like a cancer, that nobody wants to talk about. Even in this forum nobody wants higher taxes to pay if off.

In the end nobody pays for the serivces that they get in America, otherwise is a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit not to explain. Maybe your all getting a free ride and are not honest to admit it?
 
bennyhill said:
The deficit is like a cancer, that nobody wants to talk about. Even in this forum nobody wants higher taxes to pay if off.

In the end nobody pays for the serivces that they get in America, otherwise is a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit not to explain. Maybe your all getting a free ride and are not honest to admit it?
Click to expand...

Our founders never envisioned a 3.8 trillion dollar govt. and debt service that soon will exceed the entire defense budget of this country. Sad state of affairs when people lose cite of their own personal responsibility and look to the govt. to provide them personal responsibility services at someone else's expense. Almost 50% of the people in this country pay no Federal Income taxes and it is sad that they expect others to pay for their own personal responsibility services.
 
Conservative said:
You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Not one thing you mentioned could have happened in 8 months nor would anything you mentioned stopped 9/11.

Bush didn't invade Iraq until 1 1/2 years after 9/11. Your time line is screwed up as are your comments. Didn't read the Lord Butler report I see or anything else that has been posted about world intelligence reports on Iraq.

I had two family members serve in Iraq with one in Military intelligence. After serving two terms in Iraq he says to this day we were right in removing Saddam Hussein. David Kay apparently agreed with him.

Kay on Today: "It Was Absolutely Prudent to Go to War Against Saddam" (Remarkable New Info)
Click to expand...

The only thing that could have stopped 9/11 was for the CIA and the FBI to talk to each other. Together, they knew who and what was going to happen. There was no nation we could have invaded, no leader we could have killed that would have stopped or prevented 9/11. And both the Bush team and the Clinton team agree with that.

And I know when Bush invade Iraq (where do you get these silly thoughts?) which supports much of my argument. If invading stopped us from being attacked, making us safe, why weren't we attacked prior to invading during the year and a half?

And let's talk about Kay for a minute. Was he correct about there being wmds? Seriously, did we find anything that matched the claims? And while it's nice you feel American's can decide for Iraqis what's right and worth it, we got nothing from this to justify over 100,000 lives, millions displaced, billions spent, that helped both our enemy recruit and Iran gain more power in the region. Instead of merely saying you know someone who thinks it was worth it, show gain that justifies the cost, . . . if you can.
 
Catawba said:
That's how elections are decided in a Republic.
Click to expand...

I'm getting quite tired of your little dance of fail.
You bait and troll, don't deal directly with questions asked, then you always fall back on majority rules.

It's lame and usually proves you don't know what your talking about.

Catawba said:
I've provided my personal situation that was unsustainable under the status quo.

In addition:

" * The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually reported that 54.5 million people were uninsured for at least part of the year. Health Insurance Coverage: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2006. Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur200706.pdf

* The amount of uninsured is rising every year, as premiums continue to skyrocket and wages stagnate. From 2004 to 2005 the number of uninsured rose 1.3 million, and rose up nearly 6 million from 2001-2005. Leighton Ku, "Census Revises Estimates Of The Number Of Uninsured People," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, April 5, 2007 Census Revises Estimates of the Number of Uninsured People — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. With 44.8 uninsured in 2005, in 2007 the number will be much higher. Professors Todd Gilmer and Richard Kronick, in "It's The Premiums, Stupid: Projections Of The Uninsured Through 2013," Health Affairs, 10.1377/hlthaff.w5.143, "project that the number of non-elderly uninsured Americans will grow from forty-five million in 2003 to fifty-six million by 2013." According to these authors, by now the number of non-elderly uninsured by this date clearly would be nearly 50 million."

"According to the Institute of Medicine, "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage." Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine, January 2004.
http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175"
MichaelMoore.com : SiCKO : Checkup on the Facts

You have provided no "facts" that increases in restrictions and mandates have caused increases and prices.
Click to expand...

None of these things prove that the market was the culprit for medical cost inflation, but not only that you use suspect information that you refuse to recognize as such.

This report details that the more the government and insurance gets between consumers and prices, costs will inflate.

The Health Care Wedge | Prognosis for National Health Insurance Report

This one details that more mandates increases prices.

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/HealthInsuranceMandates2009.pdf

Catawba said:
Dozens of countries have been rated with a better health care system for more of their people for far less cost than the US. M/M operate at an efficiency that cannot be matched in the private market. They are busting our budgets because of the unregulated rise in medical costs in the US and priority for an energy program that requires Middle East wars.

I think the US has the capacity to act as intelligently as the rest of the developed world.
Click to expand...

The ratings of those countries have been shown to be non contextual and non adaptable to the U.S.
You refuse to acknowledge this.
If you "regulate" prices you're going to have to cut services for a lot of people.
You can't have it both ways.

The Middle East wars and energy policy was decided by democracy, a mandate of sorts.
You're going to have to get enough voters together to change that.

Catawba said:
Not sure what you mean there. The difference I see is one between a moderate goal and a conservative reality.
Click to expand...

The president and congress say that want to end subsidies to insurance companies, yet they give them indirect subsidies.
Are they being dishonest or are they ignorant?
Why do you still support them if they are dishonest? or ignorant?
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
The only thing that could have stopped 9/11 was for the CIA and the FBI to talk to each other. Together, they knew who and what was going to happen. There was no nation we could have invaded, no leader we could have killed that would have stopped or prevented 9/11. And both the Bush team and the Clinton team agree with that.

And I know when Bush invade Iraq (where do you get these silly thoughts?) which supports much of my argument. If invading stopped us from being attacked, making us safe, why weren't we attacked prior to invading during the year and a half?

And let's talk about Kay for a minute. Was he correct about there being wmds? Seriously, did we find anything that matched the claims? And while it's nice you feel American's can decide for Iraqis what's right and worth it, we got nothing from this to justify over 100,000 lives, millions displaced, billions spent, that helped both our enemy recruit and Iran gain more power in the region. Instead of merely saying you know someone who thinks it was worth it, show gain that justifies the cost, . . . if you can.
Click to expand...


I see no reason to continue to debate the Iraq War 7 years after it began and with the "empty" suit we have in the WH right now. All this is amounts to a diversion from what is going on right now. The President is doing his best to reshape this country into his vision of a socialist utopia that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. Thankfully it appears that the American people are waking up to who the majority elected. They voted for change that we can believe in and got change of everything we believe in.

this President is a disaster, from domestic policy to national security. Hope we survive him.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Why do you still support them if they are dishonest? or ignorant?
Click to expand...

Because I am a pragmatist, in that I understand they are not dishonest of ignorant. They were just too optimistic about the ability to make social progress in this country. With a conservative society as immature as that in the US, we are realistically only able to take baby steps towards social progress made in the rest of the developed world decades ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom