• 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]

j-mac said:
Costs less - Nope

Better access - ok, but with worse treatment and rationing.

Linked to employment - not according to Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Cost less, yes. We spend more than everyone, so it does in fact cost less.

No. We ration. Insurance companies (by your silly definition of rationing) ration. Not having enough money rations. So factual more people get better care.

And the last one is for UHC, which Obama has not presented.
 
Conservative said:
You said that things wouldn't change, CBO says you are wrong, costs are going up, and history of other countries shows that wait times are up, and MA shows that ER usage is up. The only so called benefit is everyone is insured, no assurance of quality improvements, no assurance that even with access that they can get an appointment or a doctor, no assurance at all that costs to the taxpayers will go down.

In my working career, I operated on the principle that if you are 80% sure that a decision is the right one then make that decision. There isn't a person out there other than maybe the leftwing wacko who believes with a 80% certainty that things will be better under Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Not in terms of what we were talking about. You jump around, and seem to have trouble staying on topic.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not in terms of what we were talking about. You jump around, and seem to have trouble staying on topic.
Click to expand...

Seems you have a problem with reality and answering direct questions. Tell me why exactly we need Obamacare and how adding 14-30 million new insurance covered people is going to lower costs, improve access, and quality?
 
Conservative said:
Seems you have a problem with reality and answering direct questions. Tell me why exactly we need Obamacare and how adding 14-30 million new insurance covered people is going to lower costs, improve access, and quality?
Click to expand...

I don't think we stop here. It really only addresses half the equation, as I've said. It helps improve access. I call on us to keep working to improve it. I argue UHC would improve it, tackling the cost as it is less expensive. How try not to ounce around.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't think we stop here. It really only addresses half the equation, as I've said. It helps improve access. I call on us to keep working to improve it. I argue UHC would improve it, tackling the cost as it is less expensive. How try not to ounce around.
Click to expand...

How will increasing access lower costs and improve quality? Adding 14-30 million new participants has to be a logistics problem since all those uninsured are all over the country and we currently have a doctor shortage. How do we solve the other half of the problem now that you have access for everyone?
 
jonny5 said:
None of that is the responsibility of the federal govt. Protection from invasion is.
Click to expand...

...actually the general welfare clause is pretty board. This notion that the only function of the US government is only to provide for the common defence is amusing.
 
upsideguy said:
...actually the general welfare clause is pretty board. This notion that the only function of the US government is only to provide for the common defence is amusing.
Click to expand...

Yes, and we have a Federal Govt. that has grown in size and power learning that they can create a dependent class and thus keep power indefinitely by using that clause to buy votes.
 
Conservative said:
How will increasing access lower costs and improve quality? Adding 14-30 million new participants has to be a logistics problem since all those uninsured are all over the country and we currently have a doctor shortage. How do we solve the other half of the problem now that you have access for everyone?
Click to expand...

Increasing access to a waiting line, like Canada does, doesn't seem like much progress to me and certainly doesn't seem worth the enormous cost that ObamaCare will add.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't think we stop here. It really only addresses half the equation, as I've said. It helps improve access. I call on us to keep working to improve it. I argue UHC would improve it, tackling the cost as it is less expensive. How try not to ounce around.
Click to expand...

You are avoiding the 800lb gorilla that conservative brought up....purposely I think.
 
upsideguy said:
...actually the general welfare clause is pretty board. This notion that the only function of the US government is only to provide for the common defence is amusing.
Click to expand...

No it isn't really. If you understand the constitution the government is to promote the 'general welfare' of the nation within its enumerated powers under Section 1 article 8 of the constitution. Separating the the two, is to throw away the constitution itself.
 
j-mac said:
You are avoiding the 800lb gorilla that conservative brought up....purposely I think.
Click to expand...

I haven't ignored anything. I think he's just pretending not to have gotten the answer. If you can't see the answer, ask and I'll answer you as well.
 
Diogenes said:
Increasing access to a waiting line, like Canada does, doesn't seem like much progress to me and certainly doesn't seem worth the enormous cost that ObamaCare will add.
Click to expand...

Thanks for parroting what you heard on Fox. Now try supporting both of these statements, if you can. You shouldn't make such statements if you can not support them.
 
Boo Radley said:
I haven't ignored anything. I think he's just pretending not to have gotten the answer. If you can't see the answer, ask and I'll answer you as well.
Click to expand...

You were asked a direct question, and this is textbook deflection, and obfuscation. Now answer the question.
 
Boo Radley said:
I haven't ignored anything. I think he's just pretending not to have gotten the answer. If you can't see the answer, ask and I'll answer you as well.
Click to expand...

You have never answered the question so here it is again

Tell me why exactly we need Obamacare and how adding 14-30 million new insurance covered people is going to lower costs, improve access, and quality?
 
Conservative said:
LOL, yes, let's compare apples and oranges which you are good at doing. Any idea what criteria is being used to generate those stats? How does UHC help you and your family? I thought you were kidding but apparently not. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and total ignorance of reality? You would give the U.S. Politicians that created a 17 trillion dollar debt control o 1/6 of the U.S. economy? They have to love having people like you.
Click to expand...

Pot calling the polar bear black.

Conservative said:
You have never answered the question so here it is again

Tell me why exactly we need Obamacare and how adding 14-30 million new insurance covered people is going to lower costs, improve access, and quality?
Click to expand...

Apparently your solution to long wait times is fewer patients.
 
Deuce said:
Pot calling the polar bear black.



Apparently your solution to long wait times is fewer patients.
Click to expand...

My solution doesn't include a massive Federal Govt. entitlement program created by politicians who have generated a 17 trillion dollar debt and to reward them by giving them more control of more dollars.
 
Conservative said:
Did you even read the article? Now answer the question

Tell me why exactly we need Obamacare and how adding 14-30 million new insurance covered people is going to lower costs, improve access, and quality?
Click to expand...
Yes, I read the article. We spend more, period. You claimed every other nation sees higher costs. Patently false. Germany has the shortest overall wait times, by the way, not the US. Another false claim for you.

In theory, fewer ER visits can lower costs. You see, right now millions of uninsured people wait until a problem becomes catastrophic and then go to the ER where the costs are highest. Preventative measures would have been cheaper. Now, Obamacare leaves the fundamentally flawed insurance model we have intact, so I'm skeptical as to whether we'll actually see lower costs. Obamacare addresses coverage a lot more than it addresses cost.

Improved access? 14-30 million people are going to have improved access. I guess you're not counting them?

Quality? It's not like our medical schools suddenly become terrible or our technology suddenly devolves.

Here's the wonderful thing about the free market: it can respond to changes in demand. Maybe you should start up a new medical equipment company, good time for it, right?
 
Deuce said:
Yes, I read the article. We spend more, period. You claimed every other nation sees higher costs. Patently false. Germany has the shortest overall wait times, by the way, not the US. Another false claim for you.

In theory, fewer ER visits can lower costs. You see, right now millions of uninsured people wait until a problem becomes catastrophic and then go to the ER where the costs are highest. Preventative measures would have been cheaper. Now, Obamacare leaves the fundamentally flawed insurance model we have intact, so I'm skeptical as to whether we'll actually see lower costs. Obamacare addresses coverage a lot more than it addresses cost.

Improved access? 14-30 million people are going to have improved access. I guess you're not counting them?

Quality? It's not like our medical schools suddenly become terrible or our technology suddenly devolves.

Here's the wonderful thing about the free market: it can respond to changes in demand. Maybe you should start up a new medical equipment company, good time for it, right?
Click to expand...

As usual you ignore reality, MA costs are up because of ER usage. More people in the system that is already plagued by a doctor shortage is going to put more pressure on the ER's because of fewer doctors and more patients. The Free Market is driven by incentive and when you reduce incentive you reduce supply. Very simple economics except to people who don't understand supply and demand.

Here is a pretty good analysis of what drives costs in this country. Ignoring the effect of govt. regulations is what big govt. liberals always do.

http://www.awhp-online.com/issues/AWHP_RisingHealthCareCosts_7-26-04.pdf

I am waiting for an explanation as to why you would reward a massive central govt. that has created a 17 trillion dollar debt by giving them more control of the economy?
 
upsideguy said:
Thanks for parroting what you heard on Fox. Now try supporting both of these statements, if you can. You shouldn't make such statements if you can not support them.
Click to expand...

I live in a border state. I don't need Fox to tell me what I read in the local papers.
 
Conservative said:
As usual you ignore reality, MA costs are up because of ER usage. More people in the system that is already plagued by a doctor shortage is going to put more pressure on the ER's because of fewer doctors and more patients. The Free Market is driven by incentive and when you reduce incentive you reduce supply. Very simple economics except to people who don't understand supply and demand.

Here is a pretty good analysis of what drives costs in this country. Ignoring the effect of govt. regulations is what big govt. liberals always do.

http://www.awhp-online.com/issues/AWHP_RisingHealthCareCosts_7-26-04.pdf

I am waiting for an explanation as to why you would reward a massive central govt. that has created a 17 trillion dollar debt by giving them more control of the economy?
Click to expand...

Yes, keep yammering about cost when the US is the most expensive by far. What's that about ignoring reality? :lamo
 
Deuce said:
Yes, keep yammering about cost when the US is the most expensive by far. What's that about ignoring reality? :lamo
Click to expand...

The question is why the U.S. has higher costs and I gave you the reasons. You choose to ignore them to promote another massive entitlement program that doesn't address costs or quality. The question is why? You cannot address costs of healthcare until you address the reasons for those higher costs and to compare this country to any other in the world is comparing apples to oranges.
 
Conservative said:
The question is why the U.S. has higher costs and I gave you the reasons. You choose to ignore them to promote another massive entitlement program that doesn't address costs or quality. The question is why? You cannot address costs of healthcare until you address the reasons for those higher costs and to compare this country to any other in the world is comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

You've handwaved most of the costs and dumped everything onto "government regulation." But in other nations, the government has far more control and costs are far lower. Can you explain that other than just dismissing it as "apples to oranges?"

I'm not promoting Obamacare. I'm promoting single-payer.
 
Deuce said:
You've handwaved most of the costs and dumped everything onto "government regulation." But in other nations, the government has far more control and costs are far lower. Can you explain that other than just dismissing it as "apples to oranges?"

I'm not promoting Obamacare. I'm promoting single-payer.
Click to expand...

Not everything but a significant portion including higher costs of Drug R&D, Malpractice insurance, govt. regulations preventing competition or insurance companies crossing state lines but let's not overlook personal behavior and why we reward bad behavior with more money thrown at the problem. Obamacare is the first step to single payer and single payer in a country of 312 million people with diverse population, different state cost of living, different state personal behavior doesn't solve the problem at all, just hides it in another govt. entitlement program that gives politicians more power. Medicare and SS are single payer and are trillions in unfunded liabilities. Creating a single payer system doesn't do anything but give the politicians more money to spend
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom