• 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 aide: Debt limit fight could be "catastrophic"

Conservative said:
Your other source still doesn't recognize the inaccuracy of the CBO in making predictions predicated on human behavior and 10 years out. There is no evidence that increasing the numbers of people on the insurance roles will reduce costs and there is no evidence that the Federal Govt. has ever reduced costs on any social program.
Click to expand...

It doesn't use the CBO. So, the CBO has no bearing in it.

And don't change the subject again.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, not true. Not only have I looked at the country as a whole, but I've even presented you a state by state view. Remember, Hawaii number 1 and Indianan 32nd? So, no, this is a problem in all fifty states. And not even number one Hawaii has completely addressed the problem effectively.

And while I can't speak to "clamor," there are and have been for decades good arguments for a universal system. And that is before reform.

And no, I fully understand the assumptions the CBO was based on and keep feeling like you're not really reading what I presented for you. Read my response again.
Click to expand...

You base your entire argument based upon cost, not quality or what goes into establishing those costs. Comparing a Free Enterprise economy to the European or other world models is comparing apples to oranges. Healthcare costs are handled by the individual in this country, not the Federal Taxpayers and when you expand govt. control over this part of the economy, you increase debt which offsets any perceived benefits. As for individual states, you have the same problem, every state is different with some doing a good job others having massive immigration problems as well as malpractice claims. Those costs are paid for by the citizens of the states, not the Federal Taxpayer. You don't pay for the costs of illegals' in TX, I do, and that is something you dont' seem to understand. There is no line item on the budget of the U.S. for Obamacare.
 
Conservative said:
You base your entire argument based upon cost, not quality or what goes into establishing those costs. Comparing a Free Enterprise economy to the European or other world models is comparing apples to oranges. Healthcare costs are handled by the individual in this country, not the Federal Taxpayers and when you expand govt. control over this part of the economy, you increase debt which offsets any perceived benefits. As for individual states, you have the same problem, every state is different with some doing a good job others having massive immigration problems as well as malpractice claims. Those costs are paid for by the citizens of the states, not the Federal Taxpayer. You don't pay for the costs of illegals' in TX, I do, and that is something you dont' seem to understand. There is no line item on the budget of the U.S. for Obamacare.
Click to expand...

No, I don't. Which again suggests you aren't really reading everything. I have said to you constantly that cost is but one part of the equation. Access is the other. For those with no or limited access, quaility is nil. So, in a system where some have excellent quality, and others have much less, access is a problem. Working to provide at least adequate care for all, while still keeping the bells and whistles for the wealthy, is the goal. Paying a lot to get less and less, as we've been doing for decades, is not smart. Getting more, even if we pay a little more, is a better alternative. Paying less and getting more, better yet.

BTW, there is no pruely capitalistic country of significance in the world today, including the US. That ship sailed long ago. Today, before reform, healthcare is paid for by the individual, insurance companies, charities, state government and the federal government. It id done rather haphazardly, and with too much wasted work and costly efforts, very ineffecitently. The mere streamlining of a univerisal payer alone would save money. A good bit of money.

And I showed you the numbers of your state. Illegals, factually, are but a small percentage of the costs you pay. It's a problem, sure, but not the only problem, or even the largest problem. Just an easy target.
 
Boo Radley;1059210822]No, I don't. Which again suggests you aren't really reading everything. I have said to you constantly that cost is but one part of the equation. Access is the other. For those with no or limited access, quaility is nil. So, in a system where some have excellent quality, and others have much less, access is a problem. Working to provide at least adequate care for all, while still keeping the bells and whistles for the wealthy, is the goal. Paying a lot to get less and less, as we've been doing for decades, is not smart. Getting more, even if we pay a little more, is a better alternative. Paying less and getting more, better yet.
Click to expand...

How is access working out for the universal care in MA? If you are willing to pay more then do so through your state, not expand the problem nationally.

BTW, there is no pruely capitalistic country of significance in the world today, including the US. That ship sailed long ago. Today, before reform, healthcare is paid for by the individual, insurance companies, charities, state government and the federal government. It id done rather haphazardly, and with too much wasted work and costly efforts, very ineffecitently. The mere streamlining of a univerisal payer alone would save money. A good bit of money.
Click to expand...

What you continue to ignore is that every dollar spent by the govt. is paid for by the U.S. Taxpayer or borrowed money and that delutes any benefit at all. If you think that the govt. can do the work more effeciently you have yet to offer proof. Medicare and SS are both filled with waste, fraud and abuse funded by the taxpayer. Waste, fraud, and abuse at the private level is funded by the company. increasing competition is the answer, not massive expansion of govt. control.


And I showed you the numbers of your state. Illegals, factually, are but a small percentage of the costs you pay. It's a problem, sure, but not the only problem, or even the largest problem. Just an easy target.
Click to expand...

And I pointed out that 600,000 was spent in my county alone for illegal care. your belief that the illegal problem is a small percentage is irrelevent because it is a cost just like Malpractice suits are a cost. There are large administrative costs to the Federal Govt. along with other costs as well which you seem to ignore. Waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal govt. is a cost as well, significant and reduces the benefit to the taxpayers.
 
Conservative said:
How is access working out for the universal care in MA? If you are willing to pay more then do so through your state, not expand the problem nationally.
Click to expand...

IS MA the only conmparison possible? How about Hawaii. Seems access is better there, and you side calls them scoalisitc.

But, this reform is neither comparable to Hawaii or MA. It's different. And I say we need more, and not less. ;)


What you continue to ignore is that every dollar spent by the govt. is paid for by the U.S. Taxpayer or borrowed money and that delutes any benefit at all. If you think that the govt. can do the work more effeciently you have yet to offer proof. Medicare and SS are both filled with waste, fraud and abuse funded by the taxpayer. Waste, fraud, and abuse at the private level is funded by the company. increasing competition is the answer, not massive expansion of govt. control.
Click to expand...

I have not ignored that at all. I'm the one that keeps telling you nothing is free. Tax payers pay for it one way or another, and through taxes might actually cost less than what we're doing now, which is uncontrolled and unmonitored.



And I pointed out that 600,000 was spent in my county alone for illegal care. your belief that the illegal problem is a small percentage is irrelevent because it is a cost just like Malpractice suits are a cost. There are large administrative costs to the Federal Govt. along with other costs as well which you seem to ignore. Waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal govt. is a cost as well, significant and reduces the benefit to the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

I think you said your state, but I gave you a link to the actual numbers, and showed it was a smaller portion.

And there are huge administrative costs to state governments and to insurance companies. presently, we're paying all those costs. No streamlining.
 
Boo Radley said:
IS MA the only conmparison possible? How about Hawaii. Seems access is better there, and you side calls them scoalisitc.

But, this reform is neither comparable to Hawaii or MA. It's different. And I say we need more, and not less. ;)




I have not ignored that at all. I'm the one that keeps telling you nothing is free. Tax payers pay for it one way or another, and through taxes might actually cost less than what we're doing now, which is uncontrolled and unmonitored.





I think you said your state, but I gave you a link to the actual numbers, and showed it was a smaller portion.

And there are huge administrative costs to state governments and to insurance companies. presently, we're paying all those costs. No streamlining.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to get your own argument, state taxpayers are paying for the healthcare expenses not covered by insurance in the individual private insurance and that is where it should be. People paying higher state costs have incentive to solve the problem locally. Where is the incentive other than gaining power at the national level? Social engineering is what liberals do thus they spend money in the name of compassion but higher costs never yield compassionate results.
 
Conservative said:
You don't seem to get your own argument, state taxpayers are paying for the healthcare expenses not covered by insurance in the individual private insurance and that is where it should be. People paying higher state costs have incentive to solve the problem locally. Where is the incentive other than gaining power at the national level? Social engineering is what liberals do thus they spend money in the name of compassion but higher costs never yield compassionate results.
Click to expand...

People have incentive to solve a problem that is a problem, regardless of whether the state government or the federal government is involved. Like I said, everyone across the country is dealing with this, so there is plenty of incentive. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
People have incentive to solve a problem that is a problem, regardless of whether the state government or the federal government is involved. Like I said, everyone across the country is dealing with this, so there is plenty of incentive. ;)
Click to expand...

Then we don't need Obamacare
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, that is your opinion. You're free to hold it. Of course, I do believe we need health care reform. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion but it is your opinion and everyone has one. You have offered zero evidence that Obamacare will improve quality, quantity and access. Seems that the majority in this country have a different opinion as well.
 
Conservative said:
You are entitled to your opinion but it is your opinion and everyone has one. You have offered zero evidence that Obamacare will improve quality, quantity and access. Seems that the majority in this country have a different opinion as well.
Click to expand...

Haven't I? More people insured doesn't improve access?
 
Conservative said:
Nope, and MA is a perfect example. Not enough doctors and hospitals to handle the demand now.
Click to expand...

No, MA is not a perfect example. Too limited, and if anything, shows the limits of a state. The federal government can do more to encourage doctors and influence the AMA to allow more doctors into medical school. Sorry, but more insured creates more access, and more access improves quality for those who had not had access before.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, MA is not a perfect example. Too limited, and if anything, shows the limits of a state. The federal government can do more to encourage doctors and influence the AMA to allow more doctors into medical school. Sorry, but more insured creates more access, and more access improves quality for those who had not had access before.
Click to expand...

So MA isn't a perfect example? Where are the people of MA going for their healthcare? Where do you propose the 40 million added to the roles go for their healthcare. You really are very naive when it comes to real world issues. I don't understand people like you who live in Iowa but somehow are an expert on everyone else. You buy what this Administration or other intellectuals tell you while ignoring history, logic, and common sense. Nothing in this program reduces ER waiting time and in fact MA is a perfect example of the opposite happening. You simply refuse to accept that because it goes agains what you think. In your world there are no consequences for being wrong, in the real world however that isn't the case.
 
Conservative said:
So MA isn't a perfect example? Where are the people of MA going for their healthcare? Where do you propose the 40 million added to the roles go for their healthcare. You really are very naive when it comes to real world issues. I don't understand people like you who live in Iowa but somehow are an expert on everyone else. You buy what this Administration or other intellectuals tell you while ignoring history, logic, and common sense. Nothing in this program reduces ER waiting time and in fact MA is a perfect example of the opposite happening. You simply refuse to accept that because it goes agains what you think. In your world there are no consequences for being wrong, in the real world however that isn't the case.
Click to expand...

Bet you they do get health care. And largely because this refomr helps encourage more doctors, not less. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Paid for, aren't they?
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question, why are ER costs up in MA since it was your original argument that ER costs would go down with better access to healthcare? ER costs are always paid for by the taxpayers of the state? Are you paying for the ER costs in MA?
 
Conservative said:
That doesn't answer the question, why are ER costs up in MA since it was your original argument that ER costs would go down with better access to healthcare? ER costs are always paid for by the taxpayers of the state? Are you paying for the ER costs in MA?
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Care given that is not paid for raises costs more than cost that are paid for. So, while it may be temporarely up in MA, and I don't see anything on a search since April, the services being paid for are better for everyone than them not being paid for.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're missing the point. Care given that is not paid for raises costs more than cost that are paid for. So, while it may be temporarely up in MA, and I don't see anything on a search since April, the services being paid for are better for everyone than them not being paid for.
Click to expand...

Who pays for the care received in the ER in MA? Who pays for the care received in your state for the uninsured in the ER? Amazing how you equate taxpayers funding ER expenses in MA as access improvement and ignore that state taxpayers pay for the ER services in your state but that isn't access or payment? Keep digging that hole deeper.
 
Conservative said:
Who pays for the care received in the ER in MA? Who pays for the care received in your state for the uninsured in the ER? Amazing how you equate taxpayers funding ER expenses in MA as access improvement and ignore that state taxpayers pay for the ER services in your state but that isn't access or payment? Keep digging that hole deeper.
Click to expand...

Taxpayers paying? That's not entirely true. The state is not a universal payer in MA. Check the system again.
 
Conservative said:
Then who pays for the ER services in MA if not the taxpayers?
Click to expand...

People paying premium on thier insurance. Just like it would have been with a public option. Those who can pay, pay.
 
Boo Radley said:
People paying premium on thier insurance. Just like it would have been with a public option. Those who can pay, pay.
Click to expand...

Those who can pay always pay, those who can't are funded by the taxpayers of the state. My insurance does not go up because of uninsured getting service at the ER. You really are naive.
 
Conservative said:
Those who can pay always pay, those who can't are funded by the taxpayers of the state. My insurance does not go up because of uninsured getting service at the ER. You really are naive.
Click to expand...

They are funded in all states, one way or another. Keep that in mind. Those who pay always pay for those who don't. One way or another. But, if you mandate that those who can affrd insurance have insurance, those people pay and not the tax payer. And if you monitor, by paying for those who can't pay, the costs of those who can't pay, you are likley to pay less than just letting the hospital run up the price unmonitored, never knowing if you're paying what it cost them, or more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom