• 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!

Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system[W:1539]

obvious Child said:
Do I think Obama is a Socialist at all? No. Because, unlike you, I actually know what Socialism is. You just define it as you so please with no regards for what it means.

It's funny how you're attacking Obama for his attempts to de-socialize Socialist medicine. The hypocrisy people have here is outrageous.
Click to expand...

His goal is to redistribute wealth and govt ownership of healthcare, in order to achieve social equality. Thats the textbook definition of socialism.
 
Buck Ewer said:
We do ...it's called the United States of America.
LOL ROTFLMFAOATSFR
Click to expand...

The USA is a constitutional republic. What youre proposing is not. Thus it would be easier if you simply started your own country instead of fundementally changing this one.
 
Paschendale said:
It's very easy to call other people sheep to make yourself feel better. Justify that with better ideas, rather than just sneering.



You mean like how the medical industry is geared around the insurance companies? And the impetus for healthcare reform has largely stemmed from a desire to take that allegiance away from insurance companies and place it into the hands of the American people? Obamacare did not do this enough, still sacrificing the health, wealth, and security of the poorest Americans to protect the profits of insurance companies. Cutting the insurance companies out of the equation entirely, through single payer, would accomplish this nicely.



As opposed to what we have now and had before Obamacare, where they were responsible to profiteering insurance companies? How exactly is a corporate accountant more interested in your health than a bureaucrat? The former's job is only to make a profit for his employers, even at the cost of your life. The latter's only job would be to coordinate health services to ensure that you got what you needed. Meanwhile, doctors usually care about their patients' health, regardless of who is paying them.
Click to expand...

You are certainly correct that the medical industry is focused around the insurance companies--because they are footing a good chunk of the bill. The only difference is that you don't really want to put it into the hands of "the American people", but you want to put it into the hands of government. Sure we elect those folks, but it's not like we've done a great job of it, so why would we expect better from them with healthcare.

Think about this. Why has the Lasik procedure gone down in price? It isn't covered by any insurance and it isn't controlled by government. All the country needs is a lot more competition and here government can help. They can allow for the insurance coverage across state lines and they can implement catastrophic coverage for all Americans. All Obamacare seems to do is create more rules and make things more complex--sort of like taxes.

If I posted something here that you disagree with, please let me know what it is. If all you think is that I didn't go far enough, then you don't seem like someone who is willing to compromise.
 
jonny5 said:
The USA is a constitutional republic. What youre proposing is not. Thus it would be easier if you simply started your own country instead of fundementally changing this one.
Click to expand...
The USA is a democratic constitutional republic. What I am proposing has already been largely achieved. Once the republican party has devoured and defeated itself the human beings can tweek the details to get where we are going.
 
jonny5 said:
The USA is a constitutional republic. What youre proposing is not. Thus it would be easier if you simply started your own country instead of fundementally changing this one.
Click to expand...

What you are asking of these liberals and progressives is fundamentally impossible for them to attempt. Starting their own country would mean that:

1. They would need the moral and ethical standing to attract followers. They don't have that.
2. They would need to take land and property away from those who have no desire to give it up. Liberals and progressives do not have to courage to make such an attempt.
3. Because of their failings listed above, they have become dependent upon their current tactics...tactics which better suit their deficit of character. These tactics include lying to and manipulating people into accepting their items in their agenda...little by little...until it seems to late for any but their ultimate goals.

Reid and his ilk are prime examples of such people...and they are now feeling comfortable with the progress of their tactics to admit their intentions...at least where Obamacare is concerned.
 
jonny5 said:
What about the rest of us?
Click to expand...

It would work even better since a majority of "the rest of us" hardly ever even use our healthcare system before age-65. It's a very small percentage who need serious healthcare before 55. And, the people using it between 55 and 65 is a drop in the bucket compared to those using it after 65.
 
Mycroft said:
Reid and his ilk are prime examples of such people...and they are now feeling comfortable with the progress of their tactics to admit their intentions...at least where Obamacare is concerned.
Click to expand...
To attempt to rise to the moral standards that the rest of humanity has established many years ago, is not a very bold stand to take.
I always thought Harry was kind of meek... This hasn't really changed my opinion of him.
 
jonny5 said:
His goal is to redistribute wealth and govt ownership of healthcare, in order to achieve social equality. Thats the textbook definition of socialism.
Click to expand...
Maybe the textbook of Rush...
As I have said before , All governments "redistribute" wealth. If you oppose this you define yourself as an anarchist. There are no governments that do not redistribute wealth.
In a single payer system the government would not own hospitals or drug factories or employ doctors. How could you see that as "ownership"?
 
Buck Ewer said:
The USA is a democratic constitutional republic. What I am proposing has already been largely achieved. Once the republican party has devoured and defeated itself the human beings can tweek the details to get where we are going.
Click to expand...

No, its a constitutional republic. The govt is run according to the constitution as the supreme law. What you are proposing is unconstitutional. Which is why you should start your own country if you dont like the laws of this one.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Maybe the textbook of Rush...
As I have said before , All governments "redistribute" wealth. If you oppose this you define yourself as an anarchist. There are no governments that do not redistribute wealth.
In a single payer system the government would not own hospitals or drug factories or employ doctors. How could you see that as "ownership"?
Click to expand...

No, an actual textbook, or dictionary if you prefer

Definition of SOCIALISM


1

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Click to expand...

In this case healthcare. The govts already own most of the hospitals, and the federal govt highly regulates healthcare. Its heading towards more control, not less. Why dont you just embrace the term and say theres nothing wrong with socialism. Why fight it?
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
It would work even better since a majority of "the rest of us" hardly ever even use our healthcare system before age-65. It's a very small percentage who need serious healthcare before 55. And, the people using it between 55 and 65 is a drop in the bucket compared to those using it after 65.
Click to expand...

Then its not working very well at all. I pay thousands a year for medicare, and get nothing for it.
 
jonny5 said:
Then its not working very well at all. I pay thousands a year for medicare, and get nothing for it.
Click to expand...
It's supposed to be that way.

I've paid tens of thoudsands for health insurance over my working career and never see a doctor. I'm still grateful for the asset protection if ever I do need hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of healthcare. That's why they call it insurance.
 
calamity said:
I know countless people who would start their own business if not for the high cost of personal healthcare. I also know that my company is at a disadvantage with foreign competitors in places like Western Europe because those companies do not have to carry the high overhead associated with healthcare. Many of our employees earn less per month in salary than the cost of their healthcare, for example.

BTW, I noticve you Righties always point to yourselves and say stuff like "I have health care, why don't you?" As if the world only revolved around you and I.
Click to expand...

Why don't they? Until Obama made things extremely difficult in landing a good job it was always easy enough to land a good enough job that provided health insurance if that's what a person wanted to do. For whatever reason, many people chose to do things that did not provide these type things. So when I hear someone whine about no health care, unless they have been laid off, most likely along the way they decided other things were more important. Might have parting, illegal drugs, working a job that paid more cash but no health insurance, been in jail, not motivated enough to go where the jobs are, and so on. if there is any fault or blame it's usually on them.

And complaining about the costs? get out of here. The more the US government gets involved in healthcare, the higher the cost will rise. Until they just quit treating people or quit authorizing treatment.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Why don't they? Until Obama made things extremely difficult in landing a good job it was always easy enough to land a good enough job that provided health insurance if that's what a person wanted to do. For whatever reason, many people chose to do things that did not provide these type things. So when I hear someone whine about no health care, unless they have been laid off, most likely along the way they decided other things were more important. Might have parting, illegal drugs, working a job that paid more cash but no health insurance, been in jail, not motivated enough to go where the jobs are, and so on. if there is any fault or blame it's usually on them.

And complaining about the costs? get out of here. The more the US government gets involved in healthcare, the higher the cost will rise. Until they just quit treating people or quit authorizing treatment.
Click to expand...

Stereotype much? No, that's not quite right. Really you're just making up wild nonsense. People work in this country, and long before Obama insurance was disappearing and / or being cut (costing more and providing less coverage). So, while we can always find someone who made a bad choice, it is also true that many do their part and simply can't access insurance.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Why don't they? Until Obama made things extremely difficult in landing a good job it was always easy enough to land a good enough job that provided health insurance if that's what a person wanted to do. For whatever reason, many people chose to do things that did not provide these type things. So when I hear someone whine about no health care, unless they have been laid off, most likely along the way they decided other things were more important. Might have parting, illegal drugs, working a job that paid more cash but no health insurance, been in jail, not motivated enough to go where the jobs are, and so on. if there is any fault or blame it's usually on them.

And complaining about the costs? get out of here. The more the US government gets involved in healthcare, the higher the cost will rise. Until they just quit treating people or quit authorizing treatment.
Click to expand...
There is so much wrong with this post, hell would freeze over before I had time to refute all of it. But...I'll start by saying health care costs have been soaring long before Obama became President.
Healthcare Costs Soar Above Overall Inflation
The average, per capita cost of providing healthcare services in the United States rose by 7.32% for the past 12 months ending in August, a rate of inflation wildly above the 1.1% overall inflation for the same period, according to new study by Standard & Poor's.

The new numbers are consistent with a trend that from August 2000 to August 2010 has seen healthcare inflation rise 48% while overall Consumer Price Index has risen 26% for the same period, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show.
Click to expand...

And, finding a good job became a problem as soon as Bill Clinton left the White House, if you want to play the partisan card.
 
calamity said:
Funny. Government healthcare seems to work pretty well for people over 65, just when they begin using the medical world for real. Fittingly it's called Medicare.
Click to expand...
I assume then that you haven't actually experienced it yet, and your opinion comes from the promotional material?
 
Diogenes said:
I assume then that you haven't actually experienced it yet, and your opinion comes from the promotional material?
Click to expand...

As I asked another, do you know what it was like for the elderly before Medicare?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
You are certainly correct that the medical industry is focused around the insurance companies--because they are footing a good chunk of the bill. The only difference is that you don't really want to put it into the hands of "the American people", but you want to put it into the hands of government. Sure we elect those folks, but it's not like we've done a great job of it, so why would we expect better from them with healthcare.

Think about this. Why has the Lasik procedure gone down in price? It isn't covered by any insurance and it isn't controlled by government. All the country needs is a lot more competition and here government can help. They can allow for the insurance coverage across state lines and they can implement catastrophic coverage for all Americans. All Obamacare seems to do is create more rules and make things more complex--sort of like taxes.

If I posted something here that you disagree with, please let me know what it is. If all you think is that I didn't go far enough, then you don't seem like someone who is willing to compromise.
Click to expand...

Well said, and spot on!
 
calamity said:
But...I'll start by saying health care costs have been soaring long before Obama became President.
Click to expand...

Agreed, ever since LBJ started his "war on poverty" and Congress started interfering with the system. Government involvement always raises the costs and decreases the efficiency of any system.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
You are certainly correct that the medical industry is focused around the insurance companies--because they are footing a good chunk of the bill. The only difference is that you don't really want to put it into the hands of "the American people", but you want to put it into the hands of government. Sure we elect those folks, but it's not like we've done a great job of it, so why would we expect better from them with healthcare.

Think about this. Why has the Lasik procedure gone down in price? It isn't covered by any insurance and it isn't controlled by government. All the country needs is a lot more competition and here government can help. They can allow for the insurance coverage across state lines and they can implement catastrophic coverage for all Americans. All Obamacare seems to do is create more rules and make things more complex--sort of like taxes.

If I posted something here that you disagree with, please let me know what it is. If all you think is that I didn't go far enough, then you don't seem like someone who is willing to compromise.
Click to expand...


LASIK has gone down in price because it is elective, no longer new, the technology simple enough as to not require major expense, and still not cheap enough to allow all to get it. Good thing it isn't a needed procedure.
 
jonny5 said:
No, an actual textbook, or dictionary if you prefer



In this case healthcare. The govts already own most of the hospitals, and the federal govt highly regulates healthcare. Its heading towards more control, not less. Why dont you just embrace the term and say theres nothing wrong with socialism. Why fight it?
Click to expand...

"More control" does not mean socialism. The very definition you just posted shows this. Airlines are heavily controlled, this does not mean we have socialized air travel.
 
Deuce said:
"More control" does not mean socialism. The very definition you just posted shows this. Airlines are heavily controlled, this does not mean we have socialized air travel.
Click to expand...

Unless you count the fact that when the airlines "messed up" and allowed morons "armed" with boxcutters to drive their aircraft into buildings that the gov't assumed liability for that "mistake" and supplied them massive amounts of free security personnel, paid the claims of victims (an average of $1.7 million each) using tax money and called it "fair". Privatizing the profits while sharing (or taking all of) the losses is not quite socialism but it is surely not exactly a "free market" system.

TARP was a similar scheme to protect the banking (and financial speculation) industry from "failing" to keep making massive amounts of money since they were too big to fail, yet apparently too small to weather the results of their massive greed on their own.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Unless you count the fact that when the airlines "messed up" and allowed morons "armed" with boxcutters to drive their aircraft into buildings that the gov't assumed liability for that "mistake" and supplied them massive amounts of free security personnel, paid the claims of victims (an average of $1.7 million each) using tax money and called it "fair". Privatizing the profits while sharing (or taking all of) the losses is not quite socialism but it sure is not exactly a free market system.

TARP was a similar scheme to protect the banking (and financial speculation) industry from "failing" to keep making massive amounts of money since they were too big to fail, yet apparently too small to weather the results of their massive greed on their own.
Click to expand...

Of course we rolled back regulations on banks, and are still reluctant to go far enough to actually stop that greed thing. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom