• 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!

"Obamacare" or UHC?

Would You Rather Have Obamacare or a System of UHC?


  • Total voters
    46
Come again?

What is your point?

That human's slaughter other animals? If that is it, it isn't something new, and it isn't just done by one side of the political spectrum.


I think he was talking more about humans slaughtering other humans such as in Iraq that almost every single Republican supported.
 
I think he was talking more about humans slaughtering other humans such as in Iraq that almost every single Republican supported.

If so, then you should have understood the following that you even quoted.

"and it isn't just done by one side of the political spectrum." Ya know?

Uh... We have a President in charge of those doing so, with support form both sides of the isle.
A President who violates other Countries sovereignty.
Etc...
What party does he belong to?

Come-on, do you really want to go there?
 
If so, then you should have understood the following that you even quoted.

"and it isn't just done by one side of the political spectrum." Ya know?

Uh... We have a President in charge of those doing so, with support form both sides of the isle.
A President who violates other Countries sovereignty.
Etc...
What party does he belong to?

Come-on, do you really want to go there?

You will have to be more specific. Our most costly war for no good reason, the Iraq war, was supported by nearly every single Republican vs a majority of Democrats that opposed it.

The president withdrew our troops from Iraq and has proposed cuts to military spending vs Romney who said it was too soon to withdraw our troops from Iraq and has pledged to increase military spending.
 
You will have to be more specific. Our most costly war for no good reason, the Iraq war, was supported by nearly every single Republican vs a majority of Democrats that opposed it.
lol
I do not know why you are going off on a tangent, but ok!


Oh, you mean they were for the war before they were against the war Democrats? Those Democrats?
And the War to remove a Despot, was for good reason.
Especially for security of the region.

The aftermath of the war which was over relatively quickly.... costs and funds could have been better managed, but the War was still for a good reason.


The president withdrew our troops from Iraq
How easily people forget. After much hemming and hawing.
He didn't keep his word as spoken. He lied.


The president withdrew our troops from Iraq and has proposed cuts to military spending vs Romney who said it was too soon to withdraw our troops from Iraq and has pledged to increase military spending.
And of course you see these as a good thing instead of a horrible thing considering the growing hostility in the World.
Figures! :doh
 
Yes, this first baby step will basically assure that everyone has access to health care,

Everyone has always had access to health care. What you mean is that you want it to be assured that everyone has access to ALL TYPES of healthcare. The uninsured had access only to hospitals previously. If you think hospital care is expensive, you should see what our outpatient clinic care costs relative to elsewhere. That's what you want people entitled to, in addition to hospital care? Hold on to your panties. Costs are about to go supernova.

the next step will be a single payer plan that reduces actual health care costs.

How would it do that?

Note: I will even tell you what I'm doing, to warn you of the trap you're going to walk into. I'm asking you how a single payer plan will reduce health care costs because the only way for it to do so requires squeezing the providers or the patients. What's gonna get squeezed, and to what degree?
 
Last edited:
Uh, they're the same thing, bro.

jesus-says-meme-generator-lol-no-6ed8a0.jpg
 
I'm beginning to think that we should just have a "libertarian opt-out" for everything. Better yet why don't we set aside a parcel of land so that the libertarians can have their own paradise lol. That would be quite an experiment.


Give them texas...so they can all sit around a campfire telling each other how great they are..
 
Give them texas...so they can all sit around a campfire telling each other how great they are..
Sounds like a plan...especially if we then give Texas back to Mexico.
 
I think he was talking more about humans slaughtering other humans such as in Iraq that almost every single Republican supported.
He understood that; he was playing the obtuse angle to avoid acknowledging the foolishness/shortsightedness of what he posted. The internet right is quite predictable when it comes to compounding their errors ;)
 
Oh, you mean they were for the war before they were against the war Democrats? Those Democrats?
And the War to remove a Despot, was for good reason.
Especially for security of the region.


We were Saddam's ally when he was at his murderous worst, so that's not it. Post Persian gulf war Iraq was no longer a military threat to the region, so that's not it.
And apparently you missed the vote on the Iraq war, almost every single Republican voted for it while a majority of Democrats voted against it.



How easily people forget. After much hemming and hawing.
He didn't keep his word as spoken. He lied.

He withdrew all troops from Iraq by the end of last year vs Romney who said it was too soon to withdraw the troops.


And of course you see these as a good thing instead of a horrible thing considering the growing hostility in the World.
Figures! :doh

We could cut our military spending to 1/6 of what we spend and still be the biggest military spender on the planet.
 
Everyone has always had access to health care.

Nope, just access to emergency care. Compare that to the level of healthcare offered by every other industrialized country on the planet.




How would it do that?

Cutting the overhead of private health insurance alone would cut costs as much as 25%, driving a hard bargain with drug firms, pay hospitals the way we do fire departments, and cap health executives’ incomes.

Note: I will even tell you what I'm doing, to warn you of the trap you're going to walk into. I'm asking you how a single payer plan will reduce health care costs because the only way for it to do so requires squeezing the providers or the patients. What's gonna get squeezed, and to what degree?

All I care about are the health care results/cost ratio and the rest of the industrialized world with UHC beats our system hands down for a larger percentage of their populations.
 
Nope, just access to emergency care.

Nope, whole hospital care.

All I care about are the health care results/cost ratio and the rest of the industrialized world with UHC beats our system hands down for a larger percentage of their populations.

I don't really care about "results" if it's bankrupting the nation. First make sure it's not bankrupting you. It's like worrying about how nice your house is before you worry about whether you can make the mortgage payments.
 
We were Saddam's ally when he was at his murderous worst, so that's not it.
Spare me.
When he became a threat to our interests, he was a threat.

Post Persian gulf war Iraq was no longer a military threat to the region, so that's not it.
His failure to abide by his own surrender agreement led to his removal from power.
And your after the fact analysis doesn't count. It was believed that he was a threat at the time. That is all that mattered.


And apparently you missed the vote on the Iraq war, almost every single Republican voted for it while a majority of Democrats voted against it.
lol
The vote is pretty much what is considered bipartisan. Sorry you don't like that.


And if you want to be specific.
Only those democrats in the house were a majority of nay votes.

2n.png



He withdrew all troops from Iraq by the end of last year vs Romney who said it was too soon to withdraw the troops.
Like I already said:
How easily people forget. After much hemming and hawing.
He didn't keep his word as spoken. He lied.


We could cut our military spending to 1/6 of what we spend and still be the biggest military spender on the planet.
And in doing that we would not keep our lead that long.
So it would be an unwise choice.
 
Nope, whole hospital care.

Of all the industrialized countries, why should only America be the only nation to only provide partial health care to its people?



I don't really care about "results" if it's bankrupting the nation.

UHC both provides better results and lower costs, as has been documented.
 
Spare me.
When he became a threat to our interests, he was a threat.


You mean by restricting access to their oil? No other threat to the US has been proven.



lol
The vote is pretty much what is considered bipartisan. Sorry you don't like that.

What was bipartisan about almost every single Republican voting for the war, and a majority of Democrats voting against the war?




And in doing that we would not keep our lead that long.


Our lead in what?
 
Of all the industrialized countries, why should only America be the only nation to only provide partial health care to its people?

Because it's too expensive in this country to provide unlimited amounts of it to all its people.

So ultimately we have a choice:

1) let people have only what they can afford and watch prices quickly drop to those levels,
2) cap salaries and watch quality fall, or
3) entitle people to whatever they need and keep scrounging for money to take from somewhere else to pay for it, and watch costs continue to spiral upward.

UHC both provides better results and lower costs, as has been documented.

You've never demonstrated that the UHC caused the lower costs. You've only demonstrated that other countries with a UHC policy HAVE lower costs (which only shows correlation). It so happens that all countries on Earth have lower health care costs. So maybe the trick to lower health care costs is to not be the United States of America.
 
Last edited:
Because it's too expensive in this country to provide unlimited amounts of it to all its people.

No one has proposed unlimited health care, only what every other industrialized nation on the planet has.





You've never demonstrated that the UHC caused the lower costs. You've only demonstrated that other countries with a UHC policy HAVE lower costs (which only shows correlation). It so happens that all countries on Earth have lower health care costs. So maybe the trick to lower health care costs is to not be the United States of America.


"According to a Harris Poll of all industrial nations, Americans are the least satisfied with their health care.
An economic overview of America's system is: 42 million people are not covered, the various health care plans place rigid limitations on which doctors and hospitals people can use, cost-saving measures are forcing patients out of hospital beds prematurely, administrative costs are approaching 25% of the health care dollar, managed care is generally structured such that physicians have incentives to cut costs and gain revenue by withholding care, and many Americans live in fear of losing whatever care they have.

Our current system is based on the power of the insurance industry to stifle any challenges from alternatives. They advocate a competitive environment where they set the rules. These rules give us health care at a very high cost with unusually high profits going to the health care industry and massive salaries going to the associated executives.

In contrast, the single payer system that Canada has used for the last 25 years has drastically simplified their administration costs. For instance, it takes more people to administer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts that it does to administer the entire health care system of Canada. Before Canada implemented their national health program, their health costs were the same portion of their economy as in the U.S. After they implemented their program, their costs stabilized at 9% while U.S. costs have increased to 14%. They spend one tenth of what U.S. health care providers spend on overhead."


Single Payer Health Care System
 
You mean by restricting access to their oil? No other threat to the US has been proven.
:doh
Like I already addressed.

Your after the fact analysis doesn't count.
It was believed that he was a threat at the time.
That is all that matters.


What was bipartisan about almost every single Republican voting for the war, and a majority of Democrats voting against the war?
It is like you are living in denial.
The majority of Senate Democrats voted for it.

The actual numbers of Democrats voting for the legislation as well as co-sponsorship is enough to establish bipartisanship.


Our lead in what?
I have seen many of your posts. You are not this ignorant.
It is like you have some bias that overrides any rational thought on our Military power lead and where much of that comes from.
We cut back spending, we will be cutting back funding of projects. We will see a brain drain.

We cut back our Military lead will eventually start seeing more belligerence and actual hostilities towards us.
It's like you want to hinder our country, in favor of what you want to be progressive, such as UHC/Obamacare.

For the sake of our Country and it's people we need to be more concerned with maintaining any lead we have and developing others, instead of supporting those individuals who can not support themselves. Because that leads nowhere fast.


Of all the industrialized countries, why should only America be the only nation to only provide partial health care to its people?
Really?
That is what you got? Crying because we don't have what harms other nations?
**** that makes people suffer more.


UHC both provides better results and lower costs, as has been documented.
No it doesn't.
The only better results are for those who never provided for themselves.
 
No one has proposed unlimited health care, only what every other industrialized nation on the planet has.


"According to a Harris Poll of all industrial nations, Americans are the least satisfied with their health care.
An economic overview of America's system is: 42 million people are not covered, the various health care plans place rigid limitations on which doctors and hospitals people can use, cost-saving measures are forcing patients out of hospital beds prematurely, administrative costs are approaching 25% of the health care dollar, managed care is generally structured such that physicians have incentives to cut costs and gain revenue by withholding care, and many Americans live in fear of losing whatever care they have.

Our current system is based on the power of the insurance industry to stifle any challenges from alternatives. They advocate a competitive environment where they set the rules. These rules give us health care at a very high cost with unusually high profits going to the health care industry and massive salaries going to the associated executives.

In contrast, the single payer system that Canada has used for the last 25 years has drastically simplified their administration costs. For instance, it takes more people to administer Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts that it does to administer the entire health care system of Canada. Before Canada implemented their national health program, their health costs were the same portion of their economy as in the U.S. After they implemented their program, their costs stabilized at 9% while U.S. costs have increased to 14%. They spend one tenth of what U.S. health care providers spend on overhead."


Single Payer Health Care System
Which is all meaningless when it is shown the crap that the Canadians have to put up with.
Which of course is much better for those who are selfish and want everybody else to foot their bill.
 
Then what are the limits? Are you going to just let people die in the streets?

Need I remind you again that the US healthcare system ranks much lower that 7 nations with UHC, at half the cost.
 
Which is all meaningless when it is shown the crap that the Canadians have to put up with.
Which of course is much better for those who are selfish and want everybody else to foot their bill.

I have not seen the Canadian effort to go back to our old school health care system, have you?
 
I have not seen the Canadian effort to go back to our old school health care system, have you?
And why would you? You aren't looking for any opposition to it are you?

Once people are dependent it would be like trying to take candy from a baby.
Or did you already forget the lesson I provided?

Today's lesson:

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever in the history of the program.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please do not feed the animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.

This ends today's lesson.


But those systems are to much of a drain and are always trying to cut costs aren't they?
 
And why would you? You aren't looking for any opposition to it are you?

Once people are dependent it would be like trying to take candy from a baby.



Yeah boy, once people get used to better health care at half the cost, its sure hard to get them to downgrade again. Amen brother!
 
Back
Top Bottom