• 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!

BREAKING: President Obama Addresses the Nation Tonight at 9

AdamT said:
France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Sweden, South Korea, Great Britain, etc., etc.

In fact they all provide essentially the same level of care we do, and generally at half the cost per capita. Eventually we will have to go to single payer or health care costs will permanently bankrupt us.
Click to expand...

Not all of those are single payer. In fact, I believe most are not. They are UHC's.
 
AdamT said:
France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Sweden, South Korea, Great Britain, etc., etc.

In fact they all provide essentially the same level of care we do, and generally at half the cost per capita. Eventually we will have to go to single payer or health care costs will permanently bankrupt us.
Click to expand...

LOL, paid any attention to the economic conditions in those countries? All are trying to dismantle those single payer systems, wonder why? The grass is always greener on the other side until you get there.
 
Conservative said:
A typical non answer, so because the state has that right makes it ok but only as long as liberals control the legislative process? Why should the Federal Taxpayer provide incentive to the states and ignore their own state?
Click to expand...

A typical non-response. And yes, it makes it OK.
 
Just because something "should" happen, doesn't mean it does. The ideology that President Obama has is Big Government. He believes that the Federal Government is capable for providing all the needs for all its citizens. I think I understand the counter arguments to this, which is why I pointed out in my original post, that I would argue it is not in the Federal Government's place to do what he did. It is the States' responsibility to ensure the solventy of police forces and fire houses.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, paid any attention to the economic conditions in those countries? All are trying to dismantle those single payer systems, wonder why? The grass is always greener on the other side until you get there.
Click to expand...

Most of those nations enjoy a higher standard of living than we do. And they work less for it. And none of them are dismantling their socialized health care systems. Socialized programs work, so people want to keep them
 
sangha said:
Not all of those are single payer. In fact, I believe most are not. They are UHC's.
Click to expand...

Single payer is not synonymous with government-run hospitals. Most countries with nationalized health care still have private doctors and hospitals, but the government is paying the bills (often with a nominal co-pay).
 
sookster said:
Just because something "should" happen, doesn't mean it does. The ideology that President Obama has is Big Government. He believes that the Federal Government is capable for providing all the needs for all its citizens. I think I understand the counter arguments to this, which is why I pointed out in my original post, that I would argue it is not in the Federal Government's place to do what he did. It is the States' responsibility to ensure the solventy of police forces and fire houses.
Click to expand...

The Federal govt. gets is money from the individual taxpayer. That money is better spent at home.
 
sangha said:
Most of those nations enjoy a higher standard of living than we do. And they work less for it. And none of them are dismantling their socialized health care systems. Socialized programs work, so people want to keep them
Click to expand...

LOL, how many other countries have you visited? We live in the greatest country on the face of the earth or at least used to but not with liberals in control.
 
sangha said:
Sure it was. That's exactly how it was sold
Click to expand...

No, it was for shovel ready jobs that didn't exist, not to bail out state budgets. It never would have passed with that as the stated goal.
 
AdamT said:
Single payer is not synonymous with government-run hospitals. Most countries with nationalized health care still have private doctors and hospitals, but the government is paying the bills (often with a nominal co-pay).
Click to expand...

I know. But take france for example. Not a single payer. The french aer insured through a number of highly regulated, private insurance companies.

Nationalized health care does not necesarily mean "single payer". There's many ways to skin a cat.
 
I understand Conservative, I do. What I am trying to get you guys to see, is there is valid arguments from both sides. I also want to get you to see, that if one side "seems to have the responsibility of their actions" then why did they allow the problem to get to where it is today? If I misquoted your statement, sorry.

Just as there is a man and a woman to raise a kid, and provide two outlooks where you can either take or reject certain points from each side, this is the beauty of the two party system. If you BLINDLY reject every concept of the other side, you are practicing a cognitive distortion. Which means, your conclusions will be distorted from reality.

Instead of pointing fingers and blaming, we need to respect other people on what they have to say, and as civilized people, debate until a reasonable compromise is established that will be in the best interest of this country.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, how many other countries have you visited? We live in the greatest country on the face of the earth or at least used to but not with liberals in control.
Click to expand...

I have travelled all over the world. Many nations have a better health care system and a higher standard of living.

But of the top ten developed nations in the world, we have the highest infant mortality


We're #1!
We're #1!
We're #1!
We're #1!
 
Conservative said:
LOL, paid any attention to the economic conditions in those countries? All are trying to dismantle those single payer systems, wonder why? The grass is always greener on the other side until you get there.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have paid attention. Most of those countries are doing quite nicely -- particularly in comparison to our current situation. Nor are any of them contemplating doing away with national health care. That doesn't mean that they are immune to rising health care costs. That is fairly universal. But they still get much more for their money than we do, and with considerably less bargaining power and economy of scale.
 
sangha said:
I know. But take france for example. Not a single payer. The french aer insured through a number of highly regulated, private insurance companies.

Nationalized health care does not necesarily mean "single payer". There's many ways to skin a cat.
Click to expand...

Cradle to grave coverage in France is a joke and bankrupting the country
 
sangha said:
Wrong, it was sold with a variety of arguments
Click to expand...

Obama record, 15.1 million officially unemployed TODAY 2 1/2 years later, 16.2% total unemployment or underemployment over 24 million TODAY, 4 trillion added to the debt as of the end of fiscal year 2011, and a rising misery index(7.83 to 12.67).
 
Conservative said:
Which is a lie, but you bought it so prove it. States are responsible for solving their own problems, why do you believe someone from another state should fund your police?

Both sides did create the problem, but only one side seems to understand personal responsibility and states rights.
Click to expand...

Why did Texas Gov. Perry expect money from the Federal Government to fight fires?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom