• 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!

Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

dontworrybehappy said:
Pretty much libs show they are literally 4th grade debaters. That's a good way to put it. "Well, rest assured, if a republican was president you'd be fine with the national debt."

I have issues with that statement and they are as follows:

1. A republican isn't president, so who the **** cares?
2. I would definitely care about the debt, it's just that we're finally not facing 1. the worst terrorist attack on our nation or 2. the worst natural disaster our nation has ever faced....that would drive up debt. We are in a lull, a time where we can actually recover if we behave financially.
3. How the hell do you know how I would think of a president was in power?

Why don't you actually give real responses to questions instead of the usual grade school "Well, you guys did it too!" response. That ensures you keep the debate down at your level on not on an actual adult level and ensures no answers come from your mouth as you constantly move the goalposts so people who debate you find themselves defending your false baseless accusations and not addressing the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

Are you a majority of republcans? Or did you read it as saying dontworrybehappy wouldn't care?
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I really don't think it does.



In a large situation I would likely have to do both. Been there and did that.




Who decides able? I know my family members quite well. I have a brother who sponges. I have a grandmother who needs care. Both are a problem, but I would still choose helping both over invading my neighbor, no matter how much he was a problem in his own home.





Well, it isn't what I said, but I sure as hell when do it when I couldn't afford it. Seems to me you're trying to skip the point. ;)
Click to expand...
But you are perfectly happy to have the govenment invade your neighbors and confiscate from them to give to your brother and grandmother so you don't have to provide for them.

.
 
Boo Radley said:
Are you a majority of republcans? Or did you read it as saying dontworrybehappy wouldn't care?
Click to expand...

Are YOU the majority of anybody? You love to generalize and then bitch at people for generalizing.
 
Boo Radley said:
I said so above. Post 45 I think.
Click to expand...

You mean this?

I think the health care problem has to be fixed, in a way that reduces cost. I think a universal payer system would help do that. I think we have to address The big three, moving medicare and medicaid to a Universal payer system would help. I don't oppose means testing to help lower costs.
Click to expand...

:2rofll:
 
Boo Radley said:
I think the health care problem has to be fixed, in a way that reduces cost.
Click to expand...

Would that include rationing? In the Robert Reich method of such?

I think a universal payer system would help do that.
Click to expand...

There isn't a Universal system out there right now that isn't bankrupting the countries using them, so how would ours turn out any differently?

I don't oppose means testing to help lower costs.
Click to expand...

Nor do I

The military must also face cuts, and we don't need to be invading countries and nation building, period.
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of nation building either. But in our case now we have a sticky situation as far as just leaving where we are at. So how do you propose achieving this when Obama can't get it done either?

No, just a wish. Some consistency would be nice. I would bet republicans would give nothing more than lip serice to the debt if they were in power. History shows this to be so.
Click to expand...

Well, I would argue that this time it is far different than any other in history. So, with the anger of the people to take into account I wouldn't bet on that opinion.

Not really. It is larger and with different responsibilities that effect many more people. It is in fact very different.
Click to expand...

Math, is math...decimal placement has little to do with the equation.

Glad you agree.
Click to expand...

Well, substance would be better.

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
Yep. And your objection is?
Click to expand...

I've got no objection Boo ... the comedy you provide is never ending. Keep it up dude! You've got my 100% support. :monkey
 
j-mac said:
Would that include rationing? In the Robert Reich method of such?
Click to expand...

It is so stupid that people try to force feed that word. Does your insurance company ration? Does your wallet ration? Setting forth policy, like elective procedures won't be covered, or that ineffective and untested procedures won't be covered is not rationing. It is a lie to call it such.

There isn't a Universal system out there right now that isn't bankrupting the countries using them, so how would ours turn out any differently?
Click to expand...

None of them are. The problems with financing are not the product of the health care system. other problems, like here, effect how much the government can pay. But as those systems pay less than we do, they are not the larger problems.


Nor do I
Click to expand...

See an area of agreement.

I am not a fan of nation building either. But in our case now we have a sticky situation as far as just leaving where we are at. So how do you propose achieving this when Obama can't get it done either?
Click to expand...

You know my thoughs. Once we made the mistake, there is no easy answer. But, it is a reminder of why these things should be reserved for only when there is no other option. And let's not forget I have criticsed Obama on this front. The Afghan surge for example was a mistake, and wrong. We should only be concerned with our safety. Iraq and Afghanistan belong to the Iraqi and Afghan people. But, the military has to also face cuts.


Well, I would argue that this time it is far different than any other in history. So, with the anger of the people to take into account I wouldn't bet on that opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. And the anger is largely incoherent.




Math, is math...decimal placement has little to do with the equation.
Click to expand...

No, but the size and scope of the operation does.


Well, substance would be better.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I'm all for substance.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
Yep. And your objection is?
Click to expand...

Well let's start with this; the assertions of the single payer camp are matters of great dispute. I would much rather balance the budget with measures I know will work, rather than experiment with single payer healthcare using data which in no way accounts for a world where the US ceases to intellectually subsidize the other global exemplars of socialized medicine.
 
Jeezy said:
Well let's start with this; the assertions of the single payer camp are matters of great dispute. I would much rather balance the budget with measures I know will work, rather than experiment with single payer healthcare using data which in no way accounts for a world where the US ceases to intellectually subsidize the other global exemplars of socialized medicine.
Click to expand...

Single payers pay less. That is a fact. We pay more than nearly any other country.
 
Boo Radley said:
Single payers pay less. That is a fact. We pay more than nearly any other country.
Click to expand...

No, no, sweetums. We're replying to MY arguments, not spouting general talking points that we use on other members of this forum.

Jeezy said:
I would much rather balance the budget with measures I know will work, rather than experiment with single payer healthcare using data which in no way accounts for a world where the US ceases to intellectually subsidize the other global exemplars of socialized medicine.
Click to expand...
 
The bill would continue the authority of the United States Government to borrow funds which we must do to avoid the default on our obligations...I would have no problem with signing an extension of the debt limit. But the choice is for the United States to default on its debts for the first time in our 200-year history, or to accept a bill that has been cluttered up. This is yet another example of Congress trying to force my hand, and it's one more reason why the President needs the line item veto to separate the good from the bad.

Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility—two things that set us apart from much of the world.
Click to expand...
Does anyone want to take a guess what liberal made that statement?

Markets are getting nervous about the delaying of the extension of the debt ceiling. I can't imagine that it will be much better, both short term and long term, the longer Congress waits. But I guess that's the gamble that conservatives are willing to take.
 
Boo Radley said:
It is so stupid that people try to force feed that word. Does your insurance company ration? Does your wallet ration? Setting forth policy, like elective procedures won't be covered, or that ineffective and untested procedures won't be covered is not rationing. It is a lie to call it such.
Click to expand...


Oh, so they are all breast implants, and face lifts that are what you are talking about? Robert Reich says differently



None of them are. The problems with financing are not the product of the health care system. other problems, like here, effect how much the government can pay. But as those systems pay less than we do, they are not the larger problems.
Click to expand...

What are the financing problems then? Too low taxes? Systemic problems can be addressed without trashing the entire current system. The other HC systems that pay less than us also cover far less population than we have, and restrict services until a board of government hacks approve of them....

I don't think so. And the anger is largely incoherent.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion....I say watch.

I don't think so. And the anger is largely incoherent.
Click to expand...

BS, tell me how math changes if the decimal placement changes? I can't wait.

I'm all for substance.
Click to expand...

If you say so.


j-mac
 
toddwv said:
Right. It was "the libs", Obama and the Democrats.
We'll just ignore the 6 years that the Republicans had control of Congress AND the White House.
We'll completely ignore the spending mandated by TWO FULL INVASIONS.
We'll ignore that the Republicans' response to the increased funds that they decided to send off to be buried in a desert was to cut taxes, primarily for the rich.
We'll ignore the surplus that the Republicans squandered.
We'll ignore the Medicare additions that the Republicans signed into law.
We'll ignore the bubble economy that they sat around and watched.
We'll just ignore the $450,000,000,000 per year interest payments on the debt that the Republicans handed over.
We'll ignore that the TARP was actually signed by a Republican President.

And we'll especially ignore the fact that the Republican plan to "starve the beast" ie shrink the federal government to the size where it can be "drowned in a bathtub" has been motivating the right-wing's attack on America for the past 3 decades.

And now we're supposed to trust the Republicans when it comes to economic matters? After they sat back and watched the subprime market go into critical meltdown taking an economy that was weakened by Republican policies to the point of collapse?

We're supposed to believe that everything will be alright if we listen to the Republicans who want to take us back over the edge of economic destruction.

No thanks.
Click to expand...

Toddy, whatever our rate of over-spending, Obama and the Democrats accelerated it, to that point that the crisis is now upon us. By that I mean that the cost of each passing day of doing nothing is not only at a higher rate than at any time prior, but to where to kick the can down the road would be to see it go off the cliff. Meanwhile, you do the typical liberal crap of throwing out all your red herrings, like mud, in the hope that something will stick.

Bottom line, and its so simple even a liberal should be able to understand it, is that we must address it now. We must restore sanity, via tangible austerity measures, NOW.
 
j-mac said:
Oh, so they are all breast implants, and face lifts that are what you are talking about? Robert Reich says differently
Click to expand...

I can't believe you went with Hannity. Seriously. First, Reich isn't a policy. he's a person with an opinon. Second, we ahve no one suggesting anyone doesn't get needed care. So yes, my comment stands.

What are the financing problems then? Too low taxes? Systemic problems can be addressed without trashing the entire current system. The other HC systems that pay less than us also cover far less population than we have, and restrict services until a board of government hacks approve of them....
Click to expand...

They world felt the economic effects of the last few years. It wasn't limited to just the US. from the stock market to wars to other problems, countries saw they're economy take a hit. It was not a case of health care taking them down.

And no, they don't cover less than we do. Sorry, we rank low by WHO because we have poorer access. And, depending on which system you're talking about, as they is more than one way to do a Universalpayer system, they don't wait all that much more than we do, and turn down no more than our insurance companies turn down. Not really a huge difference there.


That's your opinion....I say watch.
Click to expand...

And such as been said before. I remain unconvnced.

BS, tell me how math changes if the decimal placement changes? I can't wait.
Click to expand...

Yiou might want to re-read as this makes no sense.


If you say so.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I do. ;)
 
Jeezy said:
No, no, sweetums. We're replying to MY arguments, not spouting general talking points that we use on other members of this forum.
Click to expand...

Well sweet pea, I did reply to you. And no, we don't intellectually subsidize the other global exemplars of socialized medicine. I think you over credit the US here.
 
Boo Radley said:
I can't believe you went with Hannity. Seriously. First, Reich isn't a policy. he's a person with an opinon. Second, we ahve no one suggesting anyone doesn't get needed care. So yes, my comment stands.
Click to expand...

Oh, since Hannity was reporting on it, it doesn't count? Don't make me laugh. And correct me if I am wrong but Robert Reich was a Clinton administration official as well as an Obama advisor was he not? Reich admitted in that clip that he would tell granny sorry, we can't give you the expensive treatments. Didn't you listen? And as far as your point, it just got nuked.

They world felt the economic effects of the last few years. It wasn't limited to just the US. from the stock market to wars to other problems, countries saw they're economy take a hit. It was not a case of health care taking them down.
Click to expand...

How much of our money went to those countries under Obama? Do you even know?

And no, they don't cover less than we do. Sorry, we rank low by WHO because we have poorer access. And, depending on which system you're talking about, as they is more than one way to do a Universalpayer system, they don't wait all that much more than we do, and turn down no more than our insurance companies turn down. Not really a huge difference there.
Click to expand...


The WHO study is flawed.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Oh, since Hannity was reporting on it, it doesn't count? Don't make me laugh. And correct me if I am wrong but Robert Reich was a Clinton administration official as well as an Obama advisor was he not? Reich admitted in that clip that he would tell granny sorry, we can't give you the expensive treatments. Didn't you listen? And as far as your point, it just got nuked.
Click to expand...

As he can't be trusted to reported it exactly in the context it was in, yes, he is disqualifed. And all Reich did was state his opinon. This is not equal to anyone elses opinion. He doesn't speak for anyone else. Nor does it speak to any policy in place. So, it is meaningless.


How much of our money went to those countries under Obama? Do you even know?
Click to expand...

Does it matter? How much went under bush? Clinton? Bush I? Reagan? Carter? it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.


The WHO study is flawed.

j-mac
Click to expand...

While I think what it says is limited, and has to be read in terms of what they see as important, no it's not all that flawed. It is accurate in what we're talking about.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Toddy, whatever our rate of over-spending, Obama and the Democrats accelerated it, to that point that the crisis is now upon us. By that I mean that the cost of each passing day of doing nothing is not only at a higher rate than at any time prior, but to where to kick the can down the road would be to see it go off the cliff. Meanwhile, you do the typical liberal crap of throwing out all your red herrings, like mud, in the hope that something will stick.

Bottom line, and its so simple even a liberal should be able to understand it, is that we must address it now. We must restore sanity, via tangible austerity measures, NOW.
Click to expand...

As I said.

Any attempts to cut spending without drastic cuts to defense spending is simply not being serious and is nothing more than an attempt at a partisan hack job.
Any attempts to eliminate the deficit without returning the tax rates to prior sustainable levels is simply not being serious.

I'll add that implementing "austerity" measures would just be REALLY stupid right now.

Oh by the way, apparently the Republicans are trying to repeal the Medicare reform measures that attack waste, fraud and abuse without changing benefits. Now why would the Republicans wan't to block nearly $500,000,000,000 in savings for ANY reason?

Could it be that they are simply not serious about actually cutting the budget and just want to go after wildly popular and hugely successful social programs? Hmmm?
 
Boo Radley said:
Well sweet pea, I did reply to you. And no, we don't intellectually subsidize the other global exemplars of socialized medicine. I think you over credit the US here.
Click to expand...

Percent of article in biomedical research in 2009...

most-innovative-biomedicine1.jpg


Contextual citation impact...

biomedicine-citation-impact2.jpg


Percent of collaboration-based publications...

biomedicine-collaboration1.jpg


(graphs from SciVal analytics)

We host 11 of the top 20 earning pharmaceutical companies on the world in terms of revenue, income, and R&D.

If you want to talk about facts, let's talk about this one: Most new drugs are developed in the United States. According to Forbes Magazine, 80 percent of all new drugs are developed in the United States

A manufacturer that is, say, Canadian doesn't have to redo the R&D cost that US companies bear. Once a product in the United States has been developed and tested and received FDA approval, there is nothing preventing companies outside the United States from making a similar product. A significant portion of savings lie therein. And no, re-importation does not solve that problem.

Getting into an argument about means testing and administrative cost reduction leads into much murkier waters -- in the future, the United States may ultimately opt for a Medicare-inspired single payer system. I don't dispute that. But for now, in terms of present day deficit reduction, I am not especially willing to experiment with something that alters the balance of the global pharmaceutical market.
 
Last edited:
Jeezy said:
Percent of article in biomedical research in 2009...

most-innovative-biomedicine1.jpg


Contextual citation impact...

biomedicine-citation-impact2.jpg


Percent of collaboration-based publications...

biomedicine-collaboration1.jpg


(graphs from SciVal analytics)

We host 11 of the top 20 earning pharmaceutical companies on the world in terms of revenue, income, and R&D.

If you want to talk about facts, let's talk about this one: Most new drugs are developed in the United States. According to Forbes Magazine, 80 percent of all new drugs are developed in the United States

A manufacturer that is, say, Canadian doesn't have to redo the R&D cost that US companies bear. Once a product in the United States has been developed and tested and received FDA approval, there is nothing preventing companies outside the United States from making a similar product. A significant portion of savings lie therein. And no, re-importation does not solve that problem.

Getting into an argument about means testing and administrative cost reduction leads into much murkier waters -- in the future, the United States may ultimately opt for a Medicare-inspired single payer system. I don't dispute that. But for now, in terms of present day deficit reduction, I am not especially willing to experiment with something that alters the balance of the global pharmaceutical market.
Click to expand...

Little would change that, and really has little to do with a single payer system. Doing more is not equal to subsidizing btw.

And countries do do their own, and we take theirs as well. This too is not subsidizing.

And there is little reason that much would change. BTW, you might look into Univeristy Hospitals the work they do with R&D. They are largely government subsidized. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Little would change that, and really has little to do with a single payer system. Doing more is not equal to subsidizing btw.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with single payer, especially one that means-tests. Once you make the system less about profit and more about coverage, you'll have less R&D. It's elementary. The fact that we, as a country, have taken the lions share of initial development costs and then resold these medicines to single payer countries is equivalent to a subsidy. It is not a subsidy in literal terms -- this is certain. But it is an indirect subsidy regardless.

Boo Radley said:
And countries do do their own, and we take theirs as well. This too is not subsidizing.
Click to expand...

Did I say Canada didn't do their own? I did not. I merely said we did the most, and later on allowed them to mimic it after eating the research cost .

Boo Radley said:
BTW, you might look into Univeristy Hospitals the work they do with R&D. They are largely government subsidized. ;)
Click to expand...

Most university research is funded by research councils, charities and industry. In a field like physics, you'd be right. But pharma-research is backed by for-profit companies. Additionally, the existence of the hospitals is often tax-payer funded, but that doesn't speak to research grants. My sister is a PhD candidate at a state university doing immunology/microbiology research. I'm not clueless as to what university hospitals do.
 
donsutherland1 said:
IMO, this would be a reckless move. First, the amount of spending reductions necessary to immediately balance the budget would wipe out economic growth, therefore, if sustained they would produce a significant self-inflicted national recession.
Click to expand...
This speaks loudly to the idiocy that is anchoring an economy on government spending.
Refusing to raise the limit - that is, to force the government to live within its means - is the best thing that could be done, long term, to address our economic, budgetary and monetary issues.
 
Last edited:
Jeezy said:
It has everything to do with single payer, especially one that means-tests. Once you make the system less about profit and more about coverage, you'll have less R&D. It's elementary. The fact that we, as a country, have taken the lions share of initial development costs and then resold these medicines to single payer countries is equivalent to a subsidy. It is not a subsidy in literal terms -- this is certain. But it is an indirect subsidy regardless.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it does. A single payer system can be done more than a few ways, and it really doesn't have to effect profit much at all. Not in this way anyhow. And You agree it is not direct. Would you argue anything we do more of is an indirect subsidy? I wouldn't. And I don't here.

Did I say Canada didn't do their own? I did not. I merely said we did the most, and later on allowed them to mimic it after eating the research cost .
Click to expand...

I didn't mention Canda at all. I merely point out that this happens all over, and both ways with many countries. We all share what others do.

Most university research is funded by research councils, charities and industry. In a field like physics, you'd be right. But pharma-research is backed by for-profit companies. Additionally, the existence of the hospitals is often tax-payer funded, but that doesn't speak to research grants. My sister is a PhD candidate at a state university doing immunology/microbiology research. I'm not clueless as to what university hospitals do.
Click to expand...

And government. With pharma-research as well. I'm not clueless either, having spent 10n years at the Univeristy of Iowa hospital and clinics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom