• 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!

Trump predicts failure of health care bill will lead to a ‘truly great plan’

You think I'm making this stuff up?

From 1930 to 1965 the federal expenditure for public health went from .11% of GDP to .24% of GDP. Then Medicare came along. In the next 35 years it went up to 3.4% of GDP and now, just 16 years later, it's 6% of GDP
Government Spending Chart: United States 1930-2016 - Federal State Local Data

Social Security was introduced in 1935 and was .06% of GDP. By 1965 it was just under 2% of GDP. Now it's more than 5% of GDP and the tax rate for OASDI has gone from 2% to 12.4%.
Government Spending Chart: United States 1930-2016 - Federal State Local Data

Meanwhile, military spending has gone from 15% of GDP in the 50's to roughly 5% of GDP now.
Government Spending Chart: United States 1930-2016 - Federal State Local Data

Why would military spending decrease as a % of GDP but Medicare and Social Security increase? Well, because people believe they are entitled to medicare and social security and they want more of it. Hell, the whole reason we're having this discussion is because you feel that people aren't getting enough medical care from the government and that they are entitled to more. Charts aside, this very argument is proving my point!

You said Medicare spending will be six times greater if we make it available for all, based on the proportion of patients on Medicare now and their healthcare utilization.

You made that up. And it's wrong, and the basis for all your 'projections'.

GIGO
 
You said Medicare spending will be six times greater if we make it available for all, based on the proportion of patients on Medicare now and their healthcare utilization.

You made that up. And it's wrong, and the basis for all your 'projections'.

GIGO

So how much will it go up if we add 6 times the people to the rolls?

I tell you what, you say it won't go up because right now the system is rife with profit taking and fraud. Why don't we take are of that first just to make sure it's really the problem. No sense in packing 260 million more people into the program and then looking for fraud because then we'd have 6 times the fraud as well as 6 times the cost, right?
 
We live in a society where many through decades of preparation from the left believe they are entitled to things they are not.

Every time I read someone claim single payer is the way to go. I am thinking this is someone who has never had to deal with the VA health care nor have they had to deal with Medicare.

I am thinking maybe they don't have a pot to piss in and think it a way to gain healthcare through wealth redistribution. I am thinking there are a lot of folks out there are down right ignorant of economics and have no clue the expenses that are thwarted on them in the form of taxes to maintain such a system. What Americans get for their dime Canada and Europe pay dearly for a lot less due to single payer.

Just to the North of us six of ten Canadian provinces have been spending half of their revenues on health care for sometime with four more to join by 2018 , It is unsustainable. It is the same way throughout Europe.

You could have a single-payer system that has user fees. You could have a single-payer system that allows private insurance. You could hire better administrators. But I think at the end of the day................and this would be my message to all my fellow Americans, you have to understand that when the government finances something, it ends up managing it.

That right there goes without saying a government running anything means 1. poor accountability, 2. Politicized decision making and 3. Lack of innovation.
 
So how much will it go up if we add 6 times the people to the rolls?

I tell you what, you say it won't go up because right now the system is rife with profit taking and fraud. Why don't we take are of that first just to make sure it's really the problem. No sense in packing 260 million more people into the program and then looking for fraud because then we'd have 6 times the fraud as well as 6 times the cost, right?

The people on Medicare are all elderly. They consume a disproportionate share of health care.

I'm pretty sure we went over this before, and it shouldn't be hard to grasp.

Therefore, assuming 30 year olds will consume an identical share of health care is, to be polite, disingenuous.
 
With Eric Cantor also ?

Why not?

These are not demigods on the Supreme Court who serve for life.

That's the people's house and we have a right to demand results or else
 
We live in a society where many through decades of preparation from the left believe they are entitled to things they are not.

Every time I read someone claim single payer is the way to go. I am thinking this is someone who has never had to deal with the VA health care nor have they had to deal with Medicare.

I am thinking maybe they don't have a pot to piss in and think it a way to gain healthcare through wealth redistribution. I am thinking there are a lot of folks out there are down right ignorant of economics and have no clue the expenses that are thwarted on them in the form of taxes to maintain such a system. What Americans get for their dime Canada and Europe pay dearly for a lot less due to single payer.

Just to the North of us six of ten Canadian provinces have been spending half of their revenues on health care for sometime with four more to join by 2018 , It is unsustainable. It is the same way throughout Europe.

You could have a single-payer system that has user fees. You could have a single-payer system that allows private insurance. You could hire better administrators. But I think at the end of the day................and this would be my message to all my fellow Americans, you have to understand that when the government finances something, it ends up managing it.

That right there goes without saying a government running anything means 1. poor accountability, 2. Politicized decision making and 3. Lack of innovation.
We already have the first two. Maybe slightly nuanced forms, but still essentially the same.

We do do well in innovation.
 
The people on Medicare are all elderly. They consume a disproportionate share of health care.

I'm pretty sure we went over this before, and it shouldn't be hard to grasp.

Therefore, assuming 30 year olds will consume an identical share of health care is, to be polite, disingenuous.

So, theoretically, if we can get a person in the pool at 20, their rates shouldn't go up as they get older because they "pre-paid", right?
 
Nice try. You've got nothing, and have to resort to BS attacks.
Well, lets see. All the civilized industrial nations have universal healthcare and you have what exactly? You have NOTHING, but hey at least Trump got another golf course outing in. That is something with an approval rating of 35%.
 
Well, lets see. All the civilized industrial nations have universal healthcare and you have what exactly?

And that means what exactly? Should we also change our form of government to match theirs, because ours is different? Is that your premise, that we are doing something wrong if it's not the same as what other industrial nations are doing?
 
Back
Top Bottom