• 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]

Boo Radley said:
No, it's a cherry picking and misrepresenting. Not only that, France is just as similar, and they rank rather well.

Look at their costs:

But it is not as expensive as the U.S. system, which is the world's most costly. The United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. In 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was $3,300.

Health Care Lessons From France : NPR

You also misrepresent in suggesting health care is the reason countries are going broke. Often it is other issues that are dragging the country down. In some cases our own financial mess and idea of predatory lending reached overseas. But the fact remains, they spend less. Ad you never answered why you don't want more of your money.
Click to expand...

I think US healthcare spending is exaggerated by the extensive use of unneeded exploratory procedures.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/h...-health-expenditures.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
Boo Radley said:
Perhaps I should have said most of the free world, as that too would be true. It really isn't a matter of freedom. No where has UHC really harmed freedom at all. I think this is largely a false notion. A person who is ill and can't get care other than emergency care isn't free. They're ill. Is like your house burning down and some patting you on the back and saying well at least you're free while they watch it burn down, and spas to the next house and the next. A fire department would have certainly been better. And like a fire department, you can have this and not lose freedom.
Click to expand...

You seem to confuse access with quality and service. Tell me how having 312 million Americans on a UHC program improves service and quality?
 
Conservative said:
You seem to confuse access with quality and service. Tell me how having 312 million Americans on a UHC program improves service and quality?
Click to expand...

The same way liberals think that by legalizing 20 million low skilled people into a market with the highest unemployment since the 1930s will lower unemployment.....
 
j-mac said:
If you don't have the money for the procedure, then it is quite possible that you have Medicaid and will still not wait 10 months...
Click to expand...

Possible? Anything is possible. But the fact remains, we have people who don't. Who wait. Who go without.
 
Conservative said:
You seem to confuse access with quality and service. Tell me how having 312 million Americans on a UHC program improves service and quality?
Click to expand...

I confuse nothing of the kind. Having access doesn't reduce quality. In fact, for the poor, quality is often quite low here.
 
Boo Radley said:
If you don't have the money or coverage here, see how long you wait.
Click to expand...

If you're disabled, by your medical condition and really don't have the money, then Medicaid is your magical answer. How long you must wait is a function of your state's speed in processing of your Medicaid claim and the willingness of a doctor to accept its meager payments for the required procedure once approved for Medicaid.
 
j-mac said:
Why am I responsible for that?
Click to expand...

Your a human being, a citizen. You're not responsible for your neighbors house but pay for fire departments anyway. And if your naive or gets the right illness, and puts it off because he can't pay, you'll see that spread to your house as well.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If you're disabled, by your medical condition and really don't have the money, then Medicaid is your magical answer. How long you must wait is a function of your state's speed in processing of your Medicaid claim and the willingness of a doctor to accept its meager payments for the required procedure once approved for Medicaid.
Click to expand...
There's a wide range of illnesses and injuries. Waiting could be longer and ore difficult than you think. And waiting until your disabled is hardly efficient.
 
Boo Radley said:
Your a human being, a citizen. You're not responsible for your neighbors house but pay for fire departments anyway. And if your naive or gets the right illness, and puts it off because he can't pay, you'll see that spread to your house as well.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. To do away with the personal responsibility to care for ones self is to say that there is a permanent underclass unable to change their situation in life...I don't believe that.
 
Boo Radley said:
Perhaps I should have said most of the free world, as that too would be true. It really isn't a matter of freedom. No where has UHC really harmed freedom at all. I think this is largely a false notion. A person who is ill and can't get care other than emergency care isn't free. They're ill. Is like your house burning down and some patting you on the back and saying well at least you're free while they watch it burn down, and spas to the next house and the next. A fire department would have certainly been better. And like a fire department, you can have this and not lose freedom.
Click to expand...

What do you think Medicaid is, if not a "universal" health care system for the poor? What PPACA could have done is to simply require a 2% to 4% tax on AGI for those not quite deamed poor enough now to get coverage under the Medicaid system. That would accomplish basically the same thing, as far as offering basic medical care for "the poor" - would it not?
 
Boo Radley said:
I confuse nothing of the kind. Having access doesn't reduce quality. In fact, for the poor, quality is often quite low here.
Click to expand...

Right, adding another 30 million to the healthcare roles and having a reduction in doctors will have no affect whatsoever on quality? Absolutely amazing, what a waste of time liberals are.
 
Boo Radley said:
There's a wide range of illnesses and injuries. Waiting could be longer and ore difficult than you think. And waiting until your disabled is hardly efficient.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but paying for insurance that you neither need nor want is not efficient either.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What do you think Medicaid is, if not a "universal" health care system for the poor? What PPACA could have done is to simply require a 2% to 4% tax on AGI for those not quite deamed poor enough now to get coverage under the Medicaid system. That would accomplish basically the same thing, as far as offering basic medical care for "the poor" - would it not?
Click to expand...

It's too limited and only gets to coverage when we've reached the worse possible situation. And our largest problem is the working poor. We want to encourage work, but then tell them they have to stop working before we can help them. It's the wrong message. And this system is inefficient both medically and economically.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Agreed, but paying for insurance that you neither need nor want is not efficient either.
Click to expand...

Need you can never be sure of. Never. Each of us is one accident or illness away from ruin. It's a false idea that there is no need. Want? Why you wouldn't want to be responsible escapes me. But the cheapest way to pay for this is through taxes and not insurance premiums.
 
calamity said:
Nonsense. I said we spend over a trillion dollars per year on the military, which the facts I cited bear out.
Click to expand...

So tell me how much money should the taxpayers fund for defense of this country?
 
Boo Radley said:
It's too limited and only gets to coverage when we've reached the worse possible situation. And our largest problem is the working poor. We want to encourage work, but then tell them they have to stop working before we can help them. It's the wrong message. And this system is inefficient both medically and economically.
Click to expand...

You are making very little sense here. PPACA both expands Medicaid and (purports to) keeps the current "private" insurance system, that you seem to dislike so much, in place. In fact, the ONLY parts of PPACA that you actually seem to like are the federal mandates and income redistribution portions as "steps toward" a UHC system.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You are making very little sense here. PPACA both expands Medicaid and (purports to) keeps the current "private" insurance system, that you seem to dislike so much, in place. In fact, the ONLY parts of PPACA that you actually seem to like are the federal mandates and income redistribution portions as "steps toward" a UHC system.
Click to expand...

I never said I liked ACA. I only said it was a step in the right direction. I favor and have stated I favor a universal payer system.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Federal taxation is in violation of the Fourth Amendment. People just "accept" taxation and judges just keep enforcing taxation because it's how they put food on the table..

Of course states have taxation legislated into their constitutions.. Apparently our federal government believes they're too "fresh" to legislate tax laws into our constitution...
Click to expand...

The constitution specifically authorizes taxation. My point was the SPENDING is illegal.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
Need you can never be sure of. Never. Each of us is one accident or illness away from ruin. It's a false idea that there is no need. Want? Why you wouldn't want to be responsible escapes me. But the cheapest way to pay for this is through taxes and not insurance premiums.
Click to expand...

Actually the cheapest way is by using cash, leaving out the insurance middle man (and the associated paperwork) entirely. PPACA does not allow that w/o a tax penalty.
 
obvious Child said:
No, that's your impression of it. There is no reason why insurance has to do that. Find me a law on the contract law statutes that say that insurance must be immediately available upon payment.

You're going to fail.
Click to expand...

Insurance is the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment.
Click to expand...

You pay money, you reduce your risk. That's the immediate benefit.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Actually the cheapest way is by using cash, leaving out the insurance middle man (and the associated paperwork) entirely. PPACA does not allow that w/o a tax penalty.
Click to expand...

Again, this leaves out the working poor. Yes, it is cheaper not to give care to the working poor. But not cheap enough to include them. And no, I can still and do pay cash. I also have insurance. Is the responsive thing to do as I will never have enough cash to afford anything major or long lasting.
 
Conservative said:
So tell me how much money should the taxpayers fund for defense of this country?
Click to expand...

Defense of this country? We're not under any threat. GMAFB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom