• 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!

Obama: Bipartisan health deal may not be possible

Damned right! Only Conservatism has the correct answers to the problems we face as a nation. Because each time Liberals have been in power, there has been nothing but failure after failure!

I doubt you value self-consistency, but if there is nothing unusual about wishing your political opposition didn't exist, then there is no reason to sensationalize the wish of liberals their opposition didn't exist.
 
Last edited:
I doubt you value self-consistency, but if there is nothing unusual about wishing the opposition didn't exist, then there is no reason to sensationalize the wish of liberals their opposition didn't exist.
No reason to senastionalize it at all, since it has een their stated goal
 
No reason to senastionalize it at all, since it has een their stated goal

I can't decide if you don't care if you are hypocritical, or if you really don't notice, or if you have noticed but are playing dumb in the hope nobody else will notice.
 
I can't decide if you don't care if you are hypocritical, or if you really don't notice, or if you have noticed but are playing dumb in the hope nobody else will notice.
What for?? You're the one who wants Conservatives out of the political discourse!
 
What for?? You're the one who wants Conservatives out of the political discourse!

He never once said that, but YOU are the one that said you desire a conservative hegemony.
 
What for?? You're the one who wants Conservatives out of the political discourse!

And you want liberals out of the political discourse. And all opposing ideologies try to minimize the influence of the other ideology.

You really didn't notice the hypocrisy in complaining about how liberals want to get conservatives out of the political discourse when you declared your desire for a conservative hegemony and for liberalism to longer exist? It's the same thing.
 
Last edited:
And you want liberals out of the political discourse. And all opposing ideologies try to minimize the influence of the other ideology.

You really didn't notice the hypocrisy in complaining about how liberals want to get conservatives out of the political discourse when you declared your desire for a conservative hegemony and for liberalism to longer exist? It's the same thing.

The major difference is that Liberalism has nothing but lies and emotions whereas Conservatism is grounded in the Truth.
 
Aside from death panels?

1. You'll have no choice in what health benefits you receive.

2. No chemo for older Medicare patients.

3. Illegal immigrants will get free health insurance.

4. The government will set doctors' wages.

The Top 5 Lies About Obama's Health Care Reform - Newsweek.com

Link

The AP is technically correct in stating that end-of-life counseling is not the same as a death panel. The New York Times is also correct to point out that the health care bill contains no provision setting up such a panel.


What both outlets fail to point out is that the panel already exists.


H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. Before the Porkulus Bill passed, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant governor of New York, wrote in detail about the Council's purpose.


Daschle's stated purpose (and therefore President Obama's purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept "hopeless diagnoses."


McCaughey goes on to explain:

Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.



More than all other presidents before him combined?

Link

After harshly criticizing President Bush for running $3.3 trillion in deficits over eight years, President Obama's budget would run $7.6 trillion in deficits over what would be his eight years in the Oval Office. Moreover, President Obama would run up more debt over his eight years than all other Presidents in American history--from George Washington through George W. Bush--combined. As a result of these deficits, net interest spending would reach $840 billion in 2020

Link
Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined
 
The major difference is that Liberalism has nothing but lies and emotions whereas Conservatism is grounded in the Truth.

I don't believe you, and you're basically arguing because what you say is true you deserve to be a hypocrite. The content of an experience, whether its true or false or reasoned or emotional, does not alter the nature of hypocrisy. My belief that smoking is unhealthy may be true and reasoned, but it would still be hypocritical of me to say it is wrong for other people should not smoke because it is unhealthy for them if I was smoking myself.

If being conservative means you are free of all obligation to be virtuous, then it is a good thing I am not conservative.

Quote:
More than all other presidents before him combined?
Link

Quote:
After harshly criticizing President Bush for running $3.3 trillion in deficits over eight years, President Obama's budget would run $7.6 trillion in deficits over what would be his eight years in the Oval Office. Moreover, President Obama would run up more debt over his eight years than all other Presidents in American history--from George Washington through George W. Bush--combined. As a result of these deficits, net interest spending would reach $840 billion in 2020
Link
Quote:
Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined

None of that is credible. There is no telling what Obama's deficits will be until his tenure in office is finished. There is furthermore no proof higher and higher deficits is something any president could have avoided; on the contrary, deficits are projected to rise significantly no matter what is done or who is in office.

Several trillion more or less doesn't make much difference at this point because any policy aiming to reduce our debt will not be encumbered or helped much by the difference, be it high or low.
 
Last edited:
Wow Morality and Bass should do this while fencing it would be like a chinese opera!
 
None of that is credible. There is no telling what Obama's deficits will be until his tenure in office is finished.
Its credible if he keeps spending at the rate he is, do you see any sign he's going to change that? I dont

There is furthermore no proof higher and higher deficits is something any president could have avoided; on the contrary, deficits are projected to rise significantly no matter what is done or who is in office.

Oh really?

Link -Wash. Post

The White House's 2011 budget is only the second-most interesting budget proposal released recently. First prize goes to Congressman Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, who's released a budget proposal that actually erases the massive long-term deficit.

That's not mere press release braggadocio. CBO agrees (pdf). Under the CBO's likeliest long-term scenario, deficits are at 42 percent of GDP in 2080. Under Ryan's proposal, we're seeing surpluses of 5 percent of GDP by that time.
 
Oh really?

Link -Wash. Post

The Washington Post is not being precise. They forget to qualify that the only deficit that would have been erased would have been in programs pertaining to health care, because that's the only aspect of the deficit the proposal covers.

It is deeply immoral (it alters the nature of programs the elderly were told to rely on when making their plans for later life), and for that reason is basically wishful thinking because it challenges programs and institutions that have a staked out existence in the hearts and minds of all Americans, politicians and laymen. American consciences may not be the most considerable force in the world, but they still aren't going to make health care harder to afford for their already struggling parents and grandparents.

It's like a prisoner imagining how easy it would be to escape his cell if only there were no walls closing him inside. Virtually, what Paul Ryan proposed is something most people know could work but nobody (whatever side of the aisle they occupy) is willing to do.

Its credible if he keeps spending at the rate he is, do you see any sign he's going to change that? I dont

Obama's strategy assumes there is nothing that can be done to stop the debt from growing exponentially. Since an exponentially growing debt is about the same problem whether it is a few trillion higher or lower, he supposes he might as well spend the few trillion more to have a functioning economy and health care system. Then you only have one huge problem instead of three very large problems.
 
Last edited:
I'm torn. I don't like the bills in the House or Senate. I also don't think Obama's bill is much better. But I think the Republican ideas are ludicrous. It would undouctedly cost more to go the step by step approach and they know it. They just want to stall so it falls through. In fact, everything they have done has been a threater show and I'm pretty sick of it. So I'll probably end up supporting a bill pushed through by reconciliation just because I'm sick of the tactics that Republicans have stooped to in order to sway public opinion.
 
I'm torn. I don't like the bills in the House or Senate. I also don't think Obama's bill is much better. But I think the Republican ideas are ludicrous. It would undouctedly cost more to go the step by step approach and they know it. They just want to stall so it falls through. In fact, everything they have done has been a threater show and I'm pretty sick of it. So I'll probably end up supporting a bill pushed through by reconciliation just because I'm sick of the tactics that Republicans have stooped to in order to sway public opinion.

One part of the Republican bill that I like it the tort reform. It is far to easy to sue doctors for malpractice.
 
One part of the Republican bill that I like it the tort reform. It is far to easy to sue doctors for malpractice.
states that have enacted tort reform have seen minimal decreases in the cost of malpractice insurance.
 
states that have enacted tort reform have seen minimal decreases in the cost of malpractice insurance.

Well something needs to be done about malpractice, because my father is a doctor and I know a lot of doctors and they tell me they have to run extra tests to make sure there isn't a possibility of missing anything. Because if something gets missed then the chances are high they will get sued for it. And it also makes them hate their job now because they always after to worry about a lawsuit if something goes wrong or if a patient dies, even if it wasn't the doctors fault.
 
I'm not a partisan but I've got to say Obama has shown a real desire to make something happen that both parties can support, the last year of his efforts are evidence of that enough for me.

He sure did. Why, he never met with Congressional republicans and even got his side to force a Christmas Eve vote on his monstrosity when they hoped no one was looking. That's the Left's idea of bipartisanship.
 
states that have enacted tort reform have seen minimal decreases in the cost of malpractice insurance.

Not sure where you're getting your information....

There is a sizable body of economic literature demonstrating that the legal environment in a State affects the frequency of malpractice claims and the size of the awards. For examples, Zuckerman, Bovbjerg, and Sloan demonstrated that physicians in States with caps on damages in malpractice cases experience lower premiums than physicians in States without such laws. Danzon found that damage awards in States with caps on damages were 23 percent lower than in States without caps.

In another article, Kessler and McClellan examined the impact of tort reforms on the practice of defensive medicine and found that tort reforms such as reasonable limits on noneconomic damages, which have been in effect in California for 25 years, can reduce health care costs by 5 percent to 9 percent without substantial effects on mortality or medical complications. Proponents of tort reform legislation emphasize that only 28 percent of physician payments for malpractice insurance are allotted to patients and that the remaining 72 percent are consumed by administrative and related costs.
Impact of State Laws Limiting Malpractice Awards on Geographic Distribution of Physicians
 
They weren't in the bill, therefore they cannot exist.

Riiiiight...and Affirmative Action specifically says it's not a quota bill.

Tell us what happens when the government has one hundred patients to treat who will die if not treated, and the treatment will cost ten million dollars but there's only five million dollars in the budget for them?

Do not pretend more money will arrive or any of the other fairy godmother **** the socialists always use to pretend their arguments are valid.

Total expenses are projected at ten, projected resources are at five. What's the bureaucrat going to do?

The word is "prioritize", and in that prioritization, the old lady is going to get the ****ty end of the stick.
 
I'm not a partisan but I've got to say Obama has shown a real desire to make something happen that both parties can support, the last year of his efforts are evidence of that enough for me.

For me too.

img1A6.jpg
 
states that have enacted tort reform have seen minimal decreases in the cost of malpractice insurance.
Then the reform must have been insufficient.
 
I would have thought that being unable to pass it through in one fell swoop, the sensible thing would be to pass points that they are in agreement with.
They can always come back with more clauses later on.
Let us try and get something done.
 
I would have thought that being unable to pass it through in one fell swoop, the sensible thing would be to pass points that they are in agreement with.
They can always come back with more clauses later on.
Let us try and get something done.
Yeah, they'll add the death squads and gulags later one. :lol:
 
I would have thought that being unable to pass it through in one fell swoop, the sensible thing would be to pass points that they are in agreement with.
They can always come back with more clauses later on.
Let us try and get something done.

We did get something done.... we stopped that abortion of a bill, now if we can just kill it dead, all 4500 pages.....
 
Back
Top Bottom