• 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!

63% Favor Repeal of National Health Care Plan


More than 300 doctors have dropped the program in the last two years, including 50 in the first three months of 2010, according to data compiled by the Houston Chronicle. Texas Medical Association officials, who conducted the 2008 survey, said the numbers far exceeded their assumptions.
So, that one predates the health care reform bill, and points out a problem that needed to be fixed.


from that one:

“The supply of doctors can’t be increased very quickly – there’s a time lag,” he said, adding, “Is the last resort to newly covered people the emergency room? I would say that is a possibility, but I wouldn’t say anybody has a very good handle on exactly how much of an infrastructure problem there will be or exactly how it might work out.”

So it will take some time to build up enough health care professionals to put the US system on a par with other civilized nations. OK, should we start now, or wait?



From that one:
FLORENCE, S.C—Tandem forces of shrinking state budgets and rising health-care costs have collided and struck a small brick ranch house in this rural town, home to Barbara Hickey.

Not sure just what that one has to do with the federal health care reform. It does point out the biggest problem with the bill that finally did get past all of the naysayers and prophets of doom: It doesn't do enough to rein in the costs of health care. There is still work to be done, a lot of it, and it probably isn't going to happen until a lot more middle class voters lose their health care. It will happen eventually, of course, and for that very reason.



ATT, Verizon, and other large companies are going to have to quit providing health insurance to retirees sooner rather than later, reform or not. It is too expensive.


check out the sources, you know rush would (LOL!)
Done.

While I have to agree that the health care reform bill that finally came out of all of the hype and doomsaying about "death panels" and all that nonsense is a long, long way from what has to be done, the voices of unreason simply will not allow any meaningful reform to take place.

That health care is too expensive is an understatement, but saying that it is due to the watered down practically compromised out of existence plan that resulted from the unholy coalition of ideologues and health industry lobbyists has caused it to be too expensive is to ignore the history of attempts to bring the US medical system into the modern world.

This issue seriously needs to be revisited, but it isn't going to happen for some time now. Meanwhile, things will get worse, and the ideologues will continue to claim that the health care bill is to blame.
 
I thought we agreed to not talk about Obamas admitted crack use...

I don't know which is worse..... Barry's crack use or Billy's, but that's what you get when a Democrat is elected..... crack use. :mrgreen:
 
Here's a question:

Why shouldn't healthcare be considered an essential public service like police and fire protection?

Here's a question:

If health care should be considered an essential public service, why not food and shelter? Why not clothing and even telephones? What makes health care special?
 
Here's a question:

If health care should be considered an essential public service, why not food and shelter? Why not clothing and even telephones? What makes health care special?

I would have to place food way above health care on the list of essential services.... i.e., how long can you go without food as opposed to health care?

Then you have phone service..... what good does health care do you if you can't call the Doctor?

Transportation..... how you going to get to the Doctor if you don't have transportation.

Gas..... this should be self explanatory.

Cloths..... ditto.

Housing..... how long are you going to last without a roof over your head?

Big screen TV...... small screen TVs cause eye strain, and how am I going to know what drugs I need if I can't watch the commercials that tell me what drugs I need so I can tell my Doctor?

Seems like a person can find all kinds of things that are essential services.

Oh yeah..... California King water bed, my Doctor says it will help my aching back.
 
I don't know which is worse..... Barry's crack use or Billy's, but that's what you get when a Democrat is elected..... crack use. :mrgreen:

Im just really suprised at D2 bringing up our presidential crack head in a discussion. Thats not really like him...
 
Lord...how long have you been waiting to use that line? ;)

You have no idea... since like 11th grade. No kidding.

BTW thanks for giving me the oppty to use it! :thanks
 
rasmussen reports was rated #1 most accurate pollster in the nation in november, 08, by fordham university study

it's really not a matter of argument, the founder of espn simply pegged the empiricals

you'd have to naysay numbers

america's most spot on surveyor predicted obtuse obama would beat maverick mccain, 52-46

the actuals came in, 53-46

what's more, the pollster permanently banned from msnbc held his ground with astonishing steadiness and stability, he had the call for weeks

in 04, rasmussen was once more right on

he foretold a 50.2-48.5 bush victory

w ultimately won, 50.7-48.3

in the 06 senate races, scott picked 24 of 25 races he reviewed, missing only ms mccaskill in mri

his average margin of error in those 25 plebiscites was 3.5%

he came within a half dozen points 23 of 25 times

he came within three 18 times

and he finished two or fewer points off eleven of 25 trials

no wonder he was found #1

http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf

Election 2006: Final Senate Results - Rasmussen Reports
 
Last edited:
Of course, when you actually explain what's in the bill to people the approval jumps to a majority but we don't really need to pay attention to that do we?

I imagine a lot of people would approve of John McCain's "Internet Freedom Act" without being told what it does.

(it would be better titled internet censorship act)
 
So, that one predates the health care reform bill, and points out a problem that needed to be fixed.



from that one:



So it will take some time to build up enough health care professionals to put the US system on a par with other civilized nations. OK, should we start now, or wait?




From that one:


Not sure just what that one has to do with the federal health care reform. It does point out the biggest problem with the bill that finally did get past all of the naysayers and prophets of doom: It doesn't do enough to rein in the costs of health care. There is still work to be done, a lot of it, and it probably isn't going to happen until a lot more middle class voters lose their health care. It will happen eventually, of course, and for that very reason.




ATT, Verizon, and other large companies are going to have to quit providing health insurance to retirees sooner rather than later, reform or not. It is too expensive.



Done.

While I have to agree that the health care reform bill that finally came out of all of the hype and doomsaying about "death panels" and all that nonsense is a long, long way from what has to be done, the voices of unreason simply will not allow any meaningful reform to take place.

That health care is too expensive is an understatement, but saying that it is due to the watered down practically compromised out of existence plan that resulted from the unholy coalition of ideologues and health industry lobbyists has caused it to be too expensive is to ignore the history of attempts to bring the US medical system into the modern world.

This issue seriously needs to be revisited, but it isn't going to happen for some time now. Meanwhile, things will get worse, and the ideologues will continue to claim that the health care bill is to blame.

with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about
 
Don't you find it strange that we never hear of Americans going to Kanuckistan for major procedures, yet it is normal for K-stani's to come south? Just think, they have a military of 3 Moose Hunters and a couple US planes... saving billions... yet their CommiKare still sucks big time.

Please, the US had the best system by far and wide, and the less government is involved, the better and cheaper it will be. Think if the government got involved with cell phone distribution, pricing and the lot? You wouldn't have one.

.

WRONG. A revolution in healthcare | Institute of Public Affairs Australia

750,000 Americans go to other countries (largely Canada) for healthcare services; while 65,000 to 80,000 come to America for healthcare.

U.S. Hospitals Worth The Trip - Forbes.com

So, that's about 10 to 1 leaving the country for care vs. entering the country for care.

Try using evidence instead of propaganda, and you'll find that facts don't add up the way you think.

And while you speak of cell phones, you're aware that we have some of the worst in the world while paying the highest rates in the world:

Mobile phone calls lowest in Finland, Netherlands and Sweden, says OECD report
 
Here's a question:

If health care should be considered an essential public service, why not food and shelter? Why not clothing and even telephones? What makes health care special?

Food isn't something you need at unpredictable intervals and when the need for food pops up it doesn't bankrupt a middle class family. The price of food can't really be spread out amongst the population because everyone has to eat anyway. The need for police protection, fire protection, or health care, on the other hand, can be a catastrophically expensive undertaking for an individual or family.

Besides, we already subsidize food and shelter for people who can't afford it because lack of those things can kill you.
 
the various govt's of canada, provincial and federal, have been forced by popular outrage for years to admit to serious problems ensnaring their health care delivery, and they have pledged repeatedly to address them

in the areas of:

1. wait times

2. brain drain

the self confessed problems surrounding health care play central roles in every canadian political campaign

that is, what are the govt's gonna do about it?

canadian health care is riddled with rationing---says the canadian govt.

canadian health care has suffered a devastating brain drain---according to the cbc

google---"canadian govt addresses health care problems"

you'll see what I'm saying

google---"wait times alliance canada," you'll be shocked.

the govt GIVES ITSELF an "incomplete" grade, by the way, in fixing its troubles

(unlike obama, who told oprah he got a B+, A- when health care passed)

CBC News In Depth: Health care

Canadian Wait Times Alliance Urges Speed in Reducing Health Care Wait Times in Canada

Addressing doctor shortage crucial, says group - CTV News

CBC.ca - Canada Votes - Why MDs are scarce and what can be done about it

Ad blitz aiming to cure doctor shortage

The doctor won't see you now

Wait Times for Health Care in Canada - Provincial Data on Wait Times for Health Care in Canada

About.com: http://gov.ns.ca/health/waittimes/

CBC News - Health - Wait times for surgery in Canada at all-time high: study

Wait Times Guarantees for Health Care in Canada - Provincial Health Wait Times Guarantees

Health system changes will take years: experts - CTV News
 
Last edited:
Food isn't something you need at unpredictable intervals and when the need for food pops up it doesn't bankrupt a middle class family. The price of food can't really be spread out amongst the population because everyone has to eat anyway. The need for police protection, fire protection, or health care, on the other hand, can be a catastrophically expensive undertaking for an individual or family.

But by that logic, all types of insurance should be public - car insurance, etc. Besides, fire protection is mostly provided by volunteers, and police protection is a public good. Health care is not a public good, by definition.

Besides, we already subsidize food and shelter for people who can't afford it because lack of those things can kill you.

We have that for health care too; it's called Medicaid.
 
But by that logic, all types of insurance should be public - car insurance, etc. Besides, fire protection is mostly provided by volunteers, and police protection is a public good. Health care is not a public good, by definition.

We have that for health care too; it's called Medicaid.

There is only one state that doesn't have a law that requires you to buy auto insurance.

How is health care, "by definition" not a public good? Where did you find that "definition" that says it's not a public good.
 
But by that logic, all types of insurance should be public - car insurance, etc. Besides, fire protection is mostly provided by volunteers, and police protection is a public good. Health care is not a public good, by definition.



We have that for health care too; it's called Medicaid.

Lack of cars or car insurance can't kill you. Plenty of cities employ full-time firefighters and those million-dollar trucks aren't volunteered. Health care should be a public good. It's a service that's tough to afford on your own, can be life-or-death, and by nature isn't subject to many of the usual free-market pressures that would otherwise keep costs low.

It's foolish to use "by that logic" extrapolations when it comes to this sort of liberal thinking. Just because a guy like me thinks health care should be a public good doesn't mean I think everything should be.
 
Last edited:
How is health care, "by definition" not a public good? Where did you find that "definition" that says it's not a public good.

Health care should be a public good.

Maybe you guys need some reading up.

Public good - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Health care is not a public good. No ifs, ands, buts, or shoulds about it. When you get health care, you are getting health care for yourself and nobody else.

And frankly, I find it odd when people ask "why not make health care public if X Y and Z are already public?" when the question one SHOULD be asking is "why make health care public if everything except X Y and Z is private?". If something should be public, that implies a specific reason for its incompatibility in the free market that makes socializing it beneficial; private is the default, not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
because it doesn't WORK

ask the canadian wait times alliances

look at the er's in massachusetts

understand how important er SAVINGS were SPOSED to pay for so much of this

these are PEOPLE we're talking about, not PLATITUDES

PRAGMATICS trumps IDEALS

in other words, GET REAL

because it doesn't WORK
 
you simply cannot expand medicare and medicaid, already overstrained, already crucially relied upon, by 12 million while simultaneously cutting their already insufficent fundings by half a tril, fundamentally

as immutable as gravity
 
Last edited:
yep..it's very unfortunate that people refuse to educate themselves about this bill, instead believing whatever talk radio feeds them.

Do you enjoy painting a huge target on your back?

Why claim everyone who doesn't agree with you are just stupid uneducated sheep, provide no evidence to support yourself then run away?

This does nothing for the debate and just makes you a target.
 
Maybe you guys need some reading up.

Public good - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Health care is not a public good. No ifs, ands, buts, or shoulds about it. When you get health care, you are getting health care for yourself and nobody else.

And frankly, I find it odd when people ask "why not make health care public if X Y and Z are already public?" when the question one SHOULD be asking is "why make health care public if everything except X Y and Z is private?". If something should be public, that implies a specific reason for its incompatibility in the free market that makes socializing it beneficial; private is the default, not the other way around.

Fine, so public good isn't the right term. You still haven't addressed the point you know I was trying to make.

(I just noticed that when it is pointed out I used the wrong term, I accept it. When I point out conservatives are using "socialism" wrong they start equivocating or change the subject)
 
Last edited:
I don't know which is worse..... Barry's crack use or Billy's, but that's what you get when a Democrat is elected..... crack use. :mrgreen:

Is there a link to back up any president's crack use, or is that just another pile of partisan crap?
 
Back
Top Bottom