• 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!

Food-stamp use doubles

If you think Britain's NHS is cumbersome and inefficient, remember that our own health care system, even before "Obamacare", is more costly still.

Too bad for supporters, o-care is collapsing under its own weight
 
No, the numbers support what I have said. We pay more. Our access
spotty. And we overdo, which can be as bad for someone as doing too little.

I gave you a damn good reason for why we pay more, you ignored it.

Its called price shifting. Not to mention not one of you UHC advocates have explained in any detail how it would be paid for.
 
I gave you a damn good reason for why we pay more, you ignored it.

Its called price shifting. Not to mention not one of you UHC advocates have explained in any detail how it would be paid for.

I didn't thin it was valid let alone good. We'd be higher even without the things you list. And other countries handle those things, and are still cheaper.

Many legals don't have insurance and also use services, also causing price shifting. Americans also feel they need to over spend, and do. And as a business, there are rewards for the doctor to over test, over treat, and over charge.

And it can be paid for much as other countries pay for it. Move your insurance premium to your tax base. And if you want more insurance, pay more for it. Nothing would prevent you.
 
Too bad for supporters, o-care is collapsing under its own weight

The health care system is collapsing under its own weight. Obamacare is just accelerating the process. We spent an average of $8,000 per person on health care before Obamacare. That's $24,000 for a family of four, which has to be over half of the average family income. That sort of expense is not sustainable. Obamacare is not going to fix the basic flaw, which is cost.
 
I'm not sure everyone who thinks they could do more is demonizing. Them. And much if that is a response to the attitude popularized by Fox and repeated by Romney that everyone is a moocher.

But frankly, business doesn't really give a ****. They get a lot of what they want from government.

Fox and Romney?

What a tired, juvenile response!
 
The health care system is collapsing under its own weight. Obamacare is just accelerating the process. We spent an average of $8,000 per person on health care before Obamacare. That's $24,000 for a family of four, which has to be over half of the average family income. That sort of expense is not sustainable. Obamacare is not going to fix the basic flaw, which is cost.

Whether its the government coming between doctor and patient, or insurance providers, the outcome is going to be greater expense for the consumer of health care.. Of course government will be worse.
 
Fox and Romney?

What a tired, juvenile response!

And so is your rebuttal. But, I merely wanted to point to a concrete example of the demonizing I speak of. There is no denying it takes place, and that many on these boards parrot it.
 
You're breakup is distracting and largely incoherent. You seem to be using it to make quips, but not points, so I'm unsure how to proceed.

However, all the things you listed from sponges (proving my point about demonizing) to lawyers are factually inaccurate. Reining in lawyers through tort reform has been tried in states and failed. All the dancing continues to fail because profit demands profit. As a service that places the one in need at a distinct disadvantage, the market simply can't be used like a market. This why were one of the few market models left.

And before you go into costs, we pay more than countries with universal health care.

Also, no one suggests there are no limits. But before I start on the poor and he working class, I'd address other issues and consider other solutions. Fighting fewer needless wars, appeasing business that is only going to out source anyway, and giving money to private business, private schools, and private lending nstitutions.

You are taking this thread into a debate over Health Care, and War, yet you say I am the one incoherent? Yeah, right....:roll: I break your ramblings into smaller pieces because that is one of the only ways to address your 15 off topic points.

Look Joe, today we have some 47 million on welfare that's 1 in 5 Americans, we have some 20 million children below the poverty line, also 1 in 5....That points to massive failure from this administration period.
 
And so is your rebuttal. But, I merely wanted to point to a concrete example of the demonizing I speak of. There is no denying it takes place, and that many on these boards parrot it.

Oh get off it....You do your fair share of demonizing your political opponents so let's not pretend here.
 
You are taking this thread into a debate over Health Care, and War, yet you say I am the one incoherent? Yeah, right....:roll: I break your ramblings into smaller pieces because that is one of the only ways to address your 15 off topic points.

Look Joe, today we have some 47 million on welfare that's 1 in 5 Americans, we have some 20 million children below the poverty line, also 1 in 5....That points to massive failure from this administration period.

I only answer what I'm giving. You do know things are related, don't you?

And no, I only ever have but two or three points. Again, sentences build off one another. When you break it to much, you lose meaning and don't gain any anything.

Do you really believe that poverty started only with this administration? SeriouslY? That's the problem with these debates, they're not serious. Obama simply could not have done anything to create this problem. It takes decades and not merely a few years. And much of it is outside the purview of a president.
 
Oh get off it....You do your fair share of demonizing your political opponents so let's not pretend here.

Feel free to point to anything specific.
 
Feel free to point to anything specific.

References to Fox News and Romney, as if either has had anything to do with the current massive federal deficit. You constantly defend all federal income redistribution programs as "needed" and blame employers for paying low wages for low skilled work. While there are less than 4 million minimum wage workers, there are many, many more that recieve these federal handouts. Simply being born in the USA does not entitle anyone to a "lower middle class" standard of living. Adding a child, while that clearly may double the size of the "family", should not double (or increase at all) one's income for performing the same (or less) work.
 
I only answer what I'm giving. You do know things are related, don't you?

And no, I only ever have but two or three points. Again, sentences build off one another. When you break it to much, you lose meaning and don't gain any anything.

Do you really believe that poverty started only with this administration? SeriouslY? That's the problem with these debates, they're not serious. Obama simply could not have done anything to create this problem. It takes decades and not merely a few years. And much of it is outside the purview of a president.

It may not have started with Obama, but he is making it worse.
 
Feel free to point to anything specific.

:roll: what a load of BS...If you can't be honest with yourself, then I am not here to be your conscience. To portray that your opponent is constantly inaccurate, while you are the paragon of truth, is just about the most dishonest, arrogant, conceded thing I can think of coming from any poster I have ever read....
 
Whether its the government coming between doctor and patient, or insurance providers, the outcome is going to be greater expense for the consumer of health care.. Of course government will be worse.

Which is why health insurance should be insurance, and not pre paid health care.

Whether the government would be worse is debatable. We still pay more than any nation with government sponsored universal health care.
 
Which is why health insurance should be insurance, and not pre paid health care.

Whether the government would be worse is debatable. We still pay more than any nation with government sponsored universal health care.

That's true but the quality of health care is number one also. Those with money certainly don't got to the UK to get anything serious looked after, or Canada or Cuba. With Obamacare the most noticeable difference will be the decrease in quality. That will naturally be the first to go. The bureaucrats are certainly not going to miss a paycheck.
 
References to Fox News and Romney, as if either has had anything to do with the current massive federal deficit. You constantly defend all federal income redistribution programs as "needed" and blame employers for paying low wages for low skilled work. While there are less than 4 million minimum wage workers, there are many, many more that recieve these federal handouts. Simply being born in the USA does not entitle anyone to a "lower middle class" standard of living. Adding a child, while that clearly may double the size of the "family", should not double (or increase at all) one's income for performing the same (or less) work.

The reference was to the demonization, not to responsibility for.
 
It may not have started with Obama, but he is making it worse.

To believe that, you have to largely believe government is the answer. The fact is there is very little government can do about this without having actual control, something neither of us want.
 
:roll: what a load of BS...If you can't be honest with yourself, then I am not here to be your conscience. To portray that your opponent is constantly inaccurate, while you are the paragon of truth, is just about the most dishonest, arrogant, conceded thing I can think of coming from any poster I have ever read....

I'll take this as you can't.

BTW, if someone is inaccurate, it is proper to point it out. Doing so is neither arrogant nor dishonest.
 
The reference was to the demonization, not to responsibility for.

OK, yet who is responsible for this income redistribution nonsense? Is it not within one's free speech rights to demonize that nonsense?
 
OK, yet who is responsible for this income redistribution nonsense? Is it not within one's free speech rights to demonize that nonsense?

Everyone. Benefits to business is also income redistribution. I think the mistake some make is in thinking that redistribution is new. And while free speech is a right, calling it what it is is also a right of free speech. Much of what some conservatives complain of (demonizing, class warfare, redistibution), they are as guilty or more so than those they complain about.
 
Everyone. Benefits to business is also income redistribution. I think the mistake some make is in thinking that redistribution is new. And while free speech is a right, calling it what it is is also a right of free speech. Much of what some conservatives complain of (demonizing, class warfare, redistibution), they are as guilty or more so than those they complain about.

Care to cite some examples? I never implied that "conservatives" did not vote for this nonsense as well. I agree 100% that the tax code should be used to raise revenue equally and should not contain social engineering goodies. Two citizens/businesses that make the same income should pay the same amount of taxation. How (and upon who) that income was later spent should have no bearing on taxation. I also strongly believe that nobody (except possibly the disabled/elderly) deserves to share the wages of others via federal income redistribution schemes. You have no right to pop out a kid and then demand that others pay not only to raise that kid but to help pay your bills as well.
 
That's true but the quality of health care is number one also. Those with money certainly don't got to the UK to get anything serious looked after, or Canada or Cuba. With Obamacare the most noticeable difference will be the decrease in quality. That will naturally be the first to go. The bureaucrats are certainly not going to miss a paycheck.

Funny, but I don't see the USA listed in the top five destinations for medical tourism.

But, you're right that the UK, Canada, and Cuba don't appear there either.

Whether the USA has the best health care is highly debatable. Whether it is the most expensive is not.
 
Care to cite some examples? I never implied that "conservatives" did not vote for this nonsense as well. I agree 100% that the tax code should be used to raise revenue equally and should not contain social engineering goodies. Two citizens/businesses that make the same income should pay the same amount of taxation. How (and upon who) that income was later spent should have no bearing on taxation. I also strongly believe that nobody (except possibly the disabled/elderly) deserves to share the wages of others via federal income redistribution schemes. You have no right to pop out a kid and then demand that others pay not only to raise that kid but to help pay your bills as well.

While I have no disagreement with much of what you say, I think largely examples like kids popping out are overstated and not representative of the majority, not even close.

As for examples of wealth distribution:

The most obvious way that Republicans have robbed from the middle to give to the rich has been the changes they wrought in the tax code — reducing income taxes for the wealthy in the Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, and cutting the tax rate on capital gains to less than half the rate on the top income of upper-middle-class employees.

The less widely understood way that Republicans have helped redistribute wealth to the already wealthy is by changing the rules. Markets don’t function without rules, and the rules that Republican policymakers have made since Ronald Reagan became president have consistently depressed the share of the nation’s income that the middle class can claim.

Redistributing wealth upward - Washington Post


Politics based on lobbying stacks the deck against lower-income groups, who are often outmaneuvered.

(snip)

The Founding Fathers were extremely worried about the threat to society posed by corruption and privilege-seeking.

Drawing on examples going back to antiquity, they understood how unmitigated wealth-taking could create a negative and cumulatively self-reinforcing political dynamic. They also understood that the Constitution — or any constitution — would be an extremely imperfect remedy for this problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/business/the-role-of-politics-in-wealth-distribution.html?_r=0

The Long History Of Redistribution Of Wealth - And Response

The Long History Of Redistribution Of Wealth - And Response (4) - 10/01/2012 - Chattanoogan.com

However, we can look at what government has done. Government bailout Walstreet and Banks, virtually none losing big. Working folks lost their homes. GM has had government help more than once. Unions face much more demonization than CEOs from conservatives on the whole.
 
While I have no disagreement with much of what you say, I think largely examples like kids popping out are overstated and not representative of the majority, not even close.

As for examples of wealth distribution:

The most obvious way that Republicans have robbed from the middle to give to the rich has been the changes they wrought in the tax code — reducing income taxes for the wealthy in the Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, and cutting the tax rate on capital gains to less than half the rate on the top income of upper-middle-class employees.

The less widely understood way that Republicans have helped redistribute wealth to the already wealthy is by changing the rules. Markets don’t function without rules, and the rules that Republican policymakers have made since Ronald Reagan became president have consistently depressed the share of the nation’s income that the middle class can claim.

Redistributing wealth upward - Washington Post


Politics based on lobbying stacks the deck against lower-income groups, who are often outmaneuvered.

(snip)

The Founding Fathers were extremely worried about the threat to society posed by corruption and privilege-seeking.

Drawing on examples going back to antiquity, they understood how unmitigated wealth-taking could create a negative and cumulatively self-reinforcing political dynamic. They also understood that the Constitution — or any constitution — would be an extremely imperfect remedy for this problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/business/the-role-of-politics-in-wealth-distribution.html?_r=0

The Long History Of Redistribution Of Wealth - And Response

The Long History Of Redistribution Of Wealth - And Response (4) - 10/01/2012 - Chattanoogan.com

However, we can look at what government has done. Government bailout Walstreet and Banks, virtually none losing big. Working folks lost their homes. GM has had government help more than once. Unions face much more demonization than CEOs from conservatives on the whole.

So these policies, that passed with a lot of demorat support, are now "conservative"? Why were they not "undone" by the mighty Obama - when he had 100% rubber stamp demorat congressional authority (allowing PPACA passage)? You may have yourself convinced that demorat congress critters are not fully into crony capitalism, but I surely am not. Gov't gifts to campaign donors is not a "conservative" idea - it is a universal DC idea.
 
Back
Top Bottom