• 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]

That you reject the reports from these other utopia's that you think are out there, where for example, a simple hip replacement has a wait time of 10 months, how many of the other countries have populations of 320 million to deal with?

No one is talking about utopia. And you cherry pick information. The last time you brought that up I showed our waits are compareable, better if you're richer, and worse if you're poorer. No ne waits for emergent or serious care. And waits in one country doesn't equal waits in all countries. You always skip that as well. I should not have to repeat this each time we talk.

And we don't take every acient to one place. We're quite capable of breaking down areas. So size has virtually no effect on this. It can be managed in a very logical and rational and effiecent manner.
 
Hardly. Nothing I'm asking for suggests less service or low quality. Don't project.

You would never suggest that because you continue to ignore history and remain naive, gullible, and poorly informed.
 
No one is talking about utopia. And you cherry pick information. The last time you brought that up I showed our waits are compareable, better if you're richer, and worse if you're poorer. No ne waits for emergent or serious care. And waits in one country doesn't equal waits in all countries. You always skip that as well. I should not have to repeat this each time we talk.

And we don't take every acient to one place. We're quite capable of breaking down areas. So size has virtually no effect on this. It can be managed in a very logical and rational and effiecent manner.

You are absolutely amazing, never wrong and always an expert on every subject. Your total defiance of history is second to none
 
You would never suggest that because you continue to ignore history and remain naive, gullible, and poorly informed.

No, name calling and being snarky doesn't make you accurate. Sorry. There is no reason quality has to suffer. We're only talking about a payer.
 
You are absolutely amazing, never wrong and always an expert on every subject. Your total defiance of history is second to none

I'm following you lead. Despite your constant errors, show me you admitting error?

So, it's another pot to kettle moment with you. Stop projecting.
 
No, name calling and being snarky doesn't make you accurate. Sorry. There is no reason quality has to suffer. We're only talking about a payer.

Do you think that Medicaire and private coverage provide equal care?
 
Depends on the private insurance.

Private insurance is now somewhat of an oxymoron considering that the PPACA law now defines, via gov't fiat, what constitutes a compliant "private" medical care insurance policy, sets (minmum and maximum) coverage standards and even levies a tax/fine if one is not covered by such a policy.
 
Generally.

Generally. Many are uninsured. Others are seriously under insured. And yes, some have excellent insurance. Overall, if we averaged, Medicare would hold up pretty well. And that's with them being asked to handle the population most likely to be I'll or injured.

But it doesn't have to be either or. A two tiered system would allow for those with money to buy more. The wealthy will always be able to buy more. Only with this the working poor would have adequate care.
 
No, name calling and being snarky doesn't make you accurate. Sorry. There is no reason quality has to suffer. We're only talking about a payer.

No name calling, just reality. You can give everyone in the country healthcare coverage and not assure they can find a doctor or get into a doctor's office. that is the problem with UHC, total coverage but inability to service the people thus more ER usage
 
Private insurance is now somewhat of an oxymoron considering that the PPACA law now defines, via gov't fiat, what constitutes a compliant "private" medical care insurance policy, sets (minmum and maximum) coverage standards and even levies a tax/fine if one is not covered by such a policy.

Largely it improves the lower end. That's not bad.
 
No name calling, just reality. You can give everyone in the country healthcare coverage and not assure they can find a doctor or get into a doctor's office. that is the problem with UHC, total coverage but inability to service the people thus more ER usage

Thats just not true.
 
Generally. Many are uninsured. Others are seriously under insured. And yes, some have excellent insurance. Overall, if we averaged, Medicare would hold up pretty well. And that's with them being asked to handle the population most likely to be I'll or injured.

But it doesn't have to be either or. A two tiered system would allow for those with money to buy more. The wealthy will always be able to buy more. Only with this the working poor would have adequate care.

That seems like a lot of assumption on your part....Medicare is about $42 Trillion in unfunded liability, and doctors even before this pile of steaming dung Obamacare, they were refusing new patients...How do you think that would be if we just slammed everyone onto Medicare?

Obama: "You can keep your own doctor" = LIE

Obama: "You can keep your insurance" = LIE

ETC!
 
Largely it improves the lower end. That's not bad.

What are you talking about? Are you asserting that income based subsidies (income redistribution) is the magical fix to grant "access to" all necessary goods and services? All have "access to" grocery stores, in fact, most are expected to actually pay for the cost of their purchases made in these private establishments (by *gasp* earning/saving the money to do so) but some are now given a special privilege, based largely upon economic need (actually, personal failure to meet that economic need) to have others pay for some (or all) of their purchases in these grocery stores.
 
No. You are not that far from liberal. A bit left of it perhaps.

Na. You're just moved so far to the Right, you can't see out of your left eye anymore.
 
You say it was. The article you linked says no. LOL.

I'll stick with the article. Next time, pay attention to what you link. Maybe you won't make yourself look so stupid.
So, you admit that you can't ****ing read. Good to know.

FYI: The article clearly stated that it did not include all costs associated with military spending.
 
The total budget of the United States was over 3.5 trillion dollars so what is your point? Do you understand what "Provide for the Common Defense" means? Please let me know when you figure it out? Your 200 billion dollar target for defense of this country out of a 3.5 trillion dollars just goes to show how naive you really are. Maybe we could use you to negotiate with radical Islam?

Unlike you and your ilk, I'm not afraid of a bunch of misfits riding on the backs of camels.
 
That seems like a lot of assumption on your part....Medicare is about $42 Trillion in unfunded liability, and doctors even before this pile of steaming dung Obamacare, they were refusing new patients...How do you think that would be if we just slammed everyone onto Medicare?

Obama: "You can keep your own doctor" = LIE

Obama: "You can keep your insurance" = LIE

ETC!

I linked for you a while back that Medicare isn't as bad off as reported. Yes, they are asked to do a lot. More than envisioned with an aging population. It's a serious problem. But you misread the this. You think giving them care, which has improved the lives if the elderly immensely is too huge a burden. We could try to figure out a better way, which, btw, would be helped by going to a UHC system.

And as is the common practice on these sites, you're exaggerating the problem. Some have refused patients. But the elderly still get care. Doctors are not going broke. Not here. Not in Canada. Not in Great Britain. Not in France.

And I care less if you like Obama. Bush lies never bothered you, so such talk by you is just partisan. What I have been talking about here is what I prefer and about Obama in any way. So, say the typing. You have no audience here for the partisan silliness.
 
I linked for you a while back that Medicare isn't as bad off as reported. Yes, they are asked to do a lot. More than envisioned with an aging population. It's a serious problem. But you misread the this. You think giving them care, which has improved the lives if the elderly immensely is too huge a burden. We could try to figure out a better way, which, btw, would be helped by going to a UHC system.

And as is the common practice on these sites, you're exaggerating the problem. Some have refused patients. But the elderly still get care. Doctors are not going broke. Not here. Not in Canada. Not in Great Britain. Not in France.

And I care less if you like Obama. Bush lies never bothered you, so such talk by you is just partisan. What I have been talking about here is what I prefer and about Obama in any way. So, say the typing. You have no audience here for the partisan silliness.

Do you know what an unfunded mandate is? Think those IOU's are funded?
 
I linked for you a while back that Medicare isn't as bad off as reported. Yes, they are asked to do a lot. More than envisioned with an aging population. It's a serious problem. But you misread the this. You think giving them care, which has improved the lives if the elderly immensely is too huge a burden. We could try to figure out a better way, which, btw, would be helped by going to a UHC system.

And as is the common practice on these sites, you're exaggerating the problem. Some have refused patients. But the elderly still get care. Doctors are not going broke. Not here. Not in Canada. Not in Great Britain. Not in France.

And I care less if you like Obama. Bush lies never bothered you, so such talk by you is just partisan. What I have been talking about here is what I prefer and about Obama in any way. So, say the typing. You have no audience here for the partisan silliness.

Math is not your friend here. Medicare, which is underfunded, is paid for by a 2.9% payroll tax on every dollar that you earn and benefits are granted only upon reaching age 65. PPACA is "paid for" by as little as a 2% tax on AGI and benefits are available immediately.
 
What are you talking about? Are you asserting that income based subsidies (income redistribution) is the magical fix to grant "access to" all necessary goods and services? All have "access to" grocery stores, in fact, most are expected to actually pay for the cost of their purchases made in these private establishments (by *gasp* earning/saving the money to do so) but some are now given a special privilege, based largely upon economic need (actually, personal failure to meet that economic need) to have others pay for some (or all) of their purchases in these grocery stores.

What I sad was improving insurance coverage wasn't a bad thing. It's a simple statement.

Medicine isn't grocery either. While we have private fire departments, we recognize the need for public ones. We have private police as well, but rightly recognize the need for public police. We even recognize the need for assistance with food. Medicine, largely more expensive than food, can be more efficiently handled for the most people through a more rational system. There are people who work, do their part, and are not adequately insured. We all ay for that.
 
Back
Top Bottom