• 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]

They are all very closely related. Fascism, socialism, Marxism, statism are all strains of the same ill. They are all tools of the authoritarian tyrant.

There are these things called books. Try them. Try approaching them as if you didn't actually know it all already.
 
There are these things called books. Try them. Try approaching them as if you didn't actually know it all already.
Cute. But wrong. I am willing to match up my library with yours. You go first.
 
No freedoms nor liberties have been lost that I know of. I do today what I did fifty years ago.

Just as long as you do not want to buy high deductible insurance because it is the best deal for the money, in which case you are no longer allowed to unless you already have it. Of course it is more important to try to keep evil rich people from taking that $6,450 deduction than it is to punish rich people for not paying their medical bills so it is understandable that most liberals do not see that as a loss of freedom.
 
As well you should. It is not too late for you to come to the right side and to be on the right side of the history of liberty.

lol I was mocking you, as it sounded ridiculously melodramatic.
 
Just as long as you do not want to buy high deductible insurance because it is the best deal for the money, in which case you are no longer allowed to unless you already have it. Of course it is more important to try to keep evil rich people from taking that $6,450 deduction than it is to punish rich people for not paying their medical bills so it is understandable that most liberals do not see that as a loss of freedom.

For something you say I can't do, this is odd:

High-Deductible Health Plans, Gamble For Some, On The Rise

High-Deductible Health Plans, Gamble For Some, On The Rise : NPR

And no one is punishing the rich. That's just more exaggerating.
 
Are you under 30? If not you better get you one before January :2wave:

Not sure why I'd want one. Cheaper, but largely ineffective if I need more.
 
Not sure why I'd want one. Cheaper, but largely ineffective if I need more.

Depends on how sickly you are. Great tax wise and gets you the preferential rate and allows you to stash away cash upon which you will be drawing interest--the same thing the insurance company does with your money.
 
Would you feel better if we used the more accurate but less interesting word statist? It is also fascistic.

All governments are statist. Don't want that? Go find some anarchy land and live there.

Putting the government in charge of yet one more thing where they have no business being is simply wrong. And we are going to fix it.

So you'd prefer a system that has thousands of middle men providing no real benefits but costing you more money every month?
So you'd prefer a system that has serious medical record sharing problems that can and do lead to more deaths?
So you'd prefer a system that has has no real controls over rising healthcare costs?
So you'd prefer a system that has backdoor death panels that never see the light of day?
 
All governments are statist. Don't want that? Go find some anarchy land and live there.
Some have much heavier hands than others... like ours compared to 100-years ago. Yes it's a different world, but not one where we need Mommy Dearest to protect us from ourselves.

So you'd prefer a system that has thousands of middle men providing no real benefits but costing you more money every month?
If you open the market to competition, those middle men get squeezed out. Today it's easier than ever before.

So you'd prefer a system that has serious medical record sharing problems that can and do lead to more deaths?
You mean like our Federal Government? And yes... medical records have been such a quandary that we hear about deaths due to them every day in the news. It's been such a problem it's a constant issue on the campaign trail from LA to NY... not.

So you'd prefer a system that has has no real controls over rising healthcare costs?
No real controls over costs? You have to be joking. Since when has government controlled costs? And should they attempt to accomplish this, what does it mean? Ask the post office... it means cuts in services, not investing in the latest technology... just look at other socialist healthKare schemes.

The market free of burdensome government intervention reduces costs. Cost controls by government never work. von Mises became a libertarian because of failed cost controls. He saw that they were the root problem... they cause problems, they don't solve them.

So you'd prefer a system that has backdoor death panels that never see the light of day?
Rather than the government death panel? The one Obama and Sebelius were so compassionate towards that 10-year old girl?

We didn't need massive Socialist schemes to cover 10million uninsured. But, with your take on the IRS (wanting it expanded), and now this... I see you have great faith in the power of government.
 
Please name for me any Federal social program that cost what it was supposed to cost, did what it was supposed to do, solved a problem, and never left the country in worse shape?

Jeaopardy Theme... Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Time's up!

Answer. None.
 
It's a government run program. Medicare is doing far more than asked, and still the results are clear, senior citizens are better off today.

If the government with all its advantages, all its employees, was such a great service provider (and had the full power of government behind it) ... there never would have been a need for FED EX, UPS and all the delivery services that have sprung up and taken a chunk away from the USPS.

Medicare and Medicaid are always in the news for their problems and high costs.
 
Some have much heavier hands than others... like ours compared to 100-years ago. Yes it's a different world, but not one where we need Mommy Dearest to protect us from ourselves.

Are you ever going to post things that are relevant to what you quote?

If you open the market to competition, those middle men get squeezed out. Today it's easier than ever before.

And Obamacare's insurance exchanges don't do this? Furthermore, single payer eliminates this entirely. Until you get to a monopoly, you'll have duplication.

You mean like our Federal Government? And yes... medical records have been such a quandary that we hear about deaths due to them every day in the news. It's been such a problem it's a constant issue on the campaign trail from LA to NY... not.

Merely because you are unable to research does not mean it doesn't happen. If you think medical records are streamlined and easily accessible to a variety of your doctors....you haven't spoken to a doctor about this in a long, long time.

No real controls over costs? You have to be joking

Funny. I was talking about the current system. It's hilarious how you failed to understand this.

Since when has government controlled costs? And should they attempt to accomplish this, what does it mean? Ask the post office... it means cuts in services, not investing in the latest technology... just look at other socialist healthKare schemes.

Silly Zimmer. Once again, you fail to research. Post Office's primary problem is that the fact that Republicans legislated that they had to pre-fund legacy costs for employees as yet unborn. Go back 6 years and see how much they've paid into that account. Sure they've lost money outside of that, but the majority of losses stem from the Federal government mandating something no organization on the planet has to do. Oh wait. Bush did it. It can't be bad right Zimmer? After all, we all know you cannot criticized Republicans.

The market free of burdensome government intervention reduces costs.

Define "burdensome."

Cost controls by government never work. von Mises became a libertarian because of failed cost controls. He saw that they were the root problem... they cause problems, they don't solve them.

Never work? You want to bet on that?

Rather than the government death panel? The one Obama and Sebelius were so compassionate towards that 10-year old girl?

Cute. Zimmer fails again. First, the transplant rules aren't actually set by any legislation. The National Organ Transplant Act sets up a framework for a task force of 25 individuals

Here's the private organization who runs the transplant policies:

OPTN: Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network

How many federal employees do you see?

And yes, this is better than a private death panel. At least you know the rules for transplants. They're publicly posted. They've been that way for years. Can you say that about a private insurance agency running the numbers to determine what they can deny the most to generate the most income? No. You know full well that it's much better to have an open rationing process of healthcare than a closed one. You just aren't mature enough to bring yourself to the point where you will agree with me. Hence why you're running on this tangent.

We didn't need massive Socialist schemes to cover 10million uninsured.

Okay, what's your proposal. Also, still not Socialist. Learn what words mean before you use them

But, with your take on the IRS (wanting it expanded)

I'd make a comment about your honesty, but I don't really see the point. The whole forum understands you aren't a honest person by any measure.

and now this... I see you have great faith in the power of government.

We went to the moon didn't we?
 
Every President has redistribution goals of wealth. Bush did it by redistributing it to the wealthy. You didn't complain then did you? As for government ownership, you need to learn what "ownership" means. Also, social equity doesn't equate to Socialism.

Please stop using words you don't understand.

Ad hominem.
 
Insurance doesn't require immediate benefits. All insurance does is spread risk. You can easily have an insurance contract that starts coverage at a date well after the initial period. Nothing in contract law prevents this.

Insurance gives you the immediate benefit of piece of mind. That's the primary point of insurance.
 
I can afford to be in the minority. I am on the right side of history.

The right side of the law, you mean. The federal govt does not give congress the power to spend money on healthcare. Now if liberals want to pass a constitutional amendment giving them that power, I would love to have the states vote on it.
 
WND??? :lamo:lamo:lamo

Try this:

4. Life expectancy of a 65 year old increased from 79.3 years in 1965 to 83.6 years in 2007.

5. In 1962, between 9% and 16% of seniors went to charitable organizations to get their medical costs paid.

6. In 1962, more than 25% of all seniors went without medical care due to health costs

7. Before Medicare, 33% of all seniors were living in poverty. Today, less than half that number, or 14%, live in poverty.

So what is the truth? The plain truth is — America’s seniors are vastly better off today because of Medicare. A return to private insurance programs would devastate the quality of life for middle income Americans. - See more at:

Health Care for Seniors before Medicare

Wow, again, the content of the article is trumped by the source? Brilliant response as usual. Just like a typical liberal ignoring costs and reporting data that cannot be tied to Medicare but more to individual lifestyle changes.

You will never get it so try to comprehend the following, there are 312 million Americans living in this country in 50 sovereign states and you want a program implemented in D.C. for those 312 million people? Medicare is broke so where does the money come from to provide that single payer system but more importantly where do the doctors come from that are willing to work for the Govt? Have you been paying attention at all? How many hospitals are having financial problems due to Medicare? How many doctors have stopped taking Medicare?

What is it about liberalism that makes people unwilling to accept the reality that you could be wrong and if wrong you are destroying the system that makes this country the best in the world?
 
All governments are statist. Don't want that? Go find some anarchy land and live there.



So you'd prefer a system that has thousands of middle men providing no real benefits but costing you more money every month?
So you'd prefer a system that has serious medical record sharing problems that can and do lead to more deaths?
So you'd prefer a system that has has no real controls over rising healthcare costs?
So you'd prefer a system that has backdoor death panels that never see the light of day?

LOL.


No, all governments are not statist. But Obama is trying hard, real hard to get us there.

"thousands of middle men providing no real benefits". My ribs hurt from laughing so hard on that one. When the leftist get us to the single payer that most lied about wanting, "thousands" of government employees sitting around drawing nice big pay checks will be a gross under estimate.

Does anybody in their right mind think the government is going to solve a record sharing problem? No chance. They will make it worse. They always do.

The government has a proven track record on controlling health care costs? LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.........

"backdoor death panels"? Not exactly sure what you mean. But we know Obamacare is upfront about their deathpanel. It make no bones about it.
 
Tats a sign of weakness my friend when you resort to that type of tactic. The fact, and it is a fact, I can do all those things.
Have you ever wanted to do anything that the government has not already allowed you to do? For example have you ever tried to buy a toilet not designed by a government busybody bureaucrat?

I get the impression that you believe the chains you wear are a fashion statement and not a badge of your complete servitude.
 
Back
Top Bottom