• 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"

Article I, Section 8, clauses 1 & 18 allow Congress to provide laws providing welfare.
LOL.

Yes, I know.

General welfare
taxation
Commerce clause.

In the interpretation of many on the left, this means they government has unlimited power to spend on anything, take anything, and get involved in any aspect of the market. Funny how you don't see issue with that.

I mean, why do you really need any enumerated powers at all, when by a liberal interpretation they have infinite power?
 
First, "Obamacare" is not a national health care plan like exists in Canada, England, France, or any other modern nation.

Second, you can support the plan that exists in those countries from a cost containment point of view.

Third, the stories of Canadians flocking across the border for health care that they can't get in their own country are just that: stories. They were told when "Hillarycare" was being proposed and debated, and seem to have become believed as fact.

I'm a Canadian living in Vancouver right now and know for a fact that clinics have been set up on the other side of the border only to serve a Canadian clientèle. It's just a short drive.

Admittedly this is only for wealthier Canadians who can afford to pay for the service and since the Canadian government has slowly allowed more private practice (once illegal) this might diminishing. It all depends on the seriousness of the illness.

But, as I said earlier, believe whatever you want.
 
You let Libs loose and they eventually reveal their agenda.

i'll agree, we need cuts....but where...if the repubs think that they are going to force a bunch of cuts in social programs, they are deluding themselves...
It is social programs that are drowning us. It is these things that have harmed the country. It is these programs that are corrupt, inefficient and failures. The delusion is thinking we can only look at the fat on the hog and not be able to slash it away.

they will have to put some serious skin in the game as well, and they will have to take some huge cuts in areas that are traditional republican favorites, such as defense spending...
Obama was asked during the Hopey/Changey Campaign what he would cut, and he couldn't come up with anything beyond the military. Here we have the chorus continuing the misguided nonsense. We know where the problem is, and it's not our defense spending that is the problem.

National defense need not be cut, it need be funded to the max. That is spending approved by the Constitutional. We need to secure our borders and ensure our military isn't left underfunded as Clinton left them. Then we get complaints our equipment isn't up-armored, and we cannot fight a 2-front war... somthing The Clintons claimed we could do... which proved to be more BS.


and while cutting spending, there will have to be a raise in taxes somewhere, and that is something repubs will have to be willing to accept, if we are ever going to get serious about bringing the deficit/debt down.
No. Tax increases will make matters worse. Even JFK understood you have to cut taxes to raise all boats. Cut taxes and slash government intrusion into ares they have no busisness.

The people didn't vote for playing with the edges. We have 13,000,000,000,000 little problems created by Eurosocialist BS. It's time to eliminate real problems.

.
 
First, "Obamacare" is not a national health care plan like exists in Canada, England, France, or any other modern nation.
Forcing people to buy a service under penalty of law isn't American.

Second, you can support the plan that exists in those countries from a cost containment point of view.
What cost containment? These Eurosocialist systems are imploding. From Stockholm to Seville, these programs result in rationed care, long waits, and corruption that increases costs.

Third, the stories of Canadians flocking across the border for health care that they can't get in their own country are just that: stories. They were told when "Hillarycare" was being proposed and debated, and seem to have become believed as fact.
Canadians are regularly sent south of the border for care because they either have to wait for, for months, or services they do not offer in Kanuckistan. Ask Ms. Stronach why, as a member of parliament, why she didn't wait and went south of the border? It is why the Quebec Supreme Court ruled waiting lists do not constitute "care".

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...alls-short-of-what-we-deserve/article1592694/

Can you help me find a family doctor?” It’s a question I’m asked practically every day in the hospital wards where I work. No wonder. According to the Canadian Medical Association, four million to five million people (16%) don’t have a family physician.

The doctor shortage is a major problem with our health-care system. Unfortunately, it’s just one of many. Our patients wait too long for basic care. The system is plagued by too much bureaucracy. And despite a massive infusion of money – the Ontario health budget has roughly doubled in the past decade – we must acknowledge what no government official is willing to admit: Canadian health care falls short of what we deserve.

...There are still too many tragedies. Think of the Montreal woman who died recently after waiting four days in a hospital ER, the last of a string of Quebec deaths that led the head of that province’s College of Physicians to hope for a “miracle.”

With so many problems, provincial governments are forced to spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year purchasing American health care for Canadians. Yes, our public dollars go to pay for their private health services.

Canadians, though, are routinely told how well our health-care system compares to those of other nations. It’s not so. Take the United States. Despite the heated political rhetoric north of the 49th parallel about American health care, their patients are more likely to survive cancer (66.3 per cent over five years for American men, but 58 per cent for Canadian men, based on recent data from national databases). Their outcomes are also better for heart attacks and transplants. And, based on data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health, Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses, and the poor under our public system seem to be less healthy relative to the non-poor than their American counterparts.

People need to pay more directly for their health care. The objective isn’t to make a cancer patient burn her life savings to pay for her care – although this happens too often to some patients in Canada’s health-care system, as seen in a survey of breast cancer survivors released by the Canadian Breast Cancer Network recently.

David Gratzer is a physician and author. He is participating in tonight’s Munk Debate, with the resolution: “Be it resolved: I would rather get sick in the U.S. than Canada.”


.
 
Last edited:
LOL.

Yes, I know.

General welfare
taxation
Commerce clause.

In the interpretation of many on the left, this means they government has unlimited power to spend on anything, take anything, and get involved in any aspect of the market. Funny how you don't see issue with that.

I mean, why do you really need any enumerated powers at all, when by a liberal interpretation they have infinite power?

They have whatever powers are granted to them by the US Constitution and clarified through rulings by the US Supreme Court. The opinion "of many on the left" or their counterparts, is irrelevant.
 
Forcing people to buy a service under penalty of law isn't American.

What cost containment? These Eurosocialist systems are imploding. From Stockholm to Seville, these programs result in rationed care, long waits, and corruption that increases costs.

Canadians are regularly sent south of the border for care because they either have to wait for, for months, or services they do not offer in Kanuckistan. Ask Ms. Stronach why, as a member of parliament, why she didn't wait and went south of the border? It is why the Quebec Supreme Court ruled waiting lists do not constitute "care".

In Canada similar lies were told in order to pass national health care and they mostly surrounded saving a lot of money and how inexpensive it would be. I see something similar happening now in the States,

Review & Outlook: ObamaCare's Reality Deficit - WSJ.com
 
You let Libs loose and they eventually reveal their agenda.

It is social programs that are drowning us. It is these things that have harmed the country. It is these programs that are corrupt, inefficient and failures. The delusion is thinking we can only look at the fat on the hog and not be able to slash it away.

Obama was asked during the Hopey/Changey Campaign what he would cut, and he couldn't come up with anything beyond the military. Here we have the chorus continuing the misguided nonsense. We know where the problem is, and it's not our defense spending that is the problem.

National defense need not be cut, it need be funded to the max. That is spending approved by the Constitutional. We need to secure our borders and ensure our military isn't left underfunded as Clinton left them. Then we get complaints our equipment isn't up-armored, and we cannot fight a 2-front war... somthing The Clintons claimed we could do... which proved to be more BS.


No. Tax increases will make matters worse. Even JFK understood you have to cut taxes to raise all boats. Cut taxes and slash government intrusion into ares they have no busisness.

The people didn't vote for playing with the edges. We have 13,000,000,000,000 little problems created by Eurosocialist BS. It's time to eliminate real problems.

.
like i said, both sides will have to have some skin in the game, and that means everything is fair game, INCLUDING DEFENSE SPENDING....and again, if you think the republicans are just going to cut programs that dems favor, YOUR DELUDING YOURSELF.
 
OK, so we have some Canadians, who of course know more about the Canadian health care system than I do, posting here. Let me ask this question once again then:

Would you trade your health care system for ours?

I've asked that question before, BTW.
 
OK, so we have some Canadians, who of course know more about the Canadian health care system than I do, posting here. Let me ask this question once again then:

Would you trade your health care system for ours?

I've asked that question before, BTW.

No

I would prefer moving the Alberta system towards either Australian or French health care styles
 
No

I would prefer moving the Alberta system towards either Australian or French health care styles

I've never yet had a yes.

Canadians want to change what they have, improve it, tweak it in one way or another, but none of them seems to want to adopt our employer based health care system.

Yet, there are the stories of clinics south of the border catering to Canadian clientele who can't get what they want in their own country, and the scandal of their premier coming here for medical care. If I were Canadian, I'd be really POed about that one.

Perhaps the correct conclusion is that Canada needs to reform and improve, while we need a total overhaul.
 
I've never yet had a yes.

Canadians want to change what they have, improve it, tweak it in one way or another, but none of them seems to want to adopt our employer based health care system.

Yet, there are the stories of clinics south of the border catering to Canadian clientele who can't get what they want in their own country, and the scandal of their premier coming here for medical care. If I were Canadian, I'd be really POed about that one.

Perhaps the correct conclusion is that Canada needs to reform and improve, while we need a total overhaul.

The Alberta government has been very idiotic in the changes they have been trying, tending to throw money at the issue rather then make any meaningfull changes in the way things are done. When they have made good changes (a clinic set up to do primarily hip and knee surgeries , privately owned) they have shut them down after a time. Changes do need to be made in the various health care systems in Canada. But not moving towards the US system. The US system is even more inefficient and costly
 
Last edited:
I've never yet had a yes.

Canadians want to change what they have, improve it, tweak it in one way or another, but none of them seems to want to adopt our employer based health care system.

Yet, there are the stories of clinics south of the border catering to Canadian clientele who can't get what they want in their own country, and the scandal of their premier coming here for medical care. If I were Canadian, I'd be really POed about that one.

Perhaps the correct conclusion is that Canada needs to reform and improve, while we need a total overhaul.

I'm not opposed to an overhaul. I'm opposed to government controlled overhaul.
 
The Alberta government has been very idiotic in the changes they have been trying, tending to throw money at the issue rather then make any meaningfull changes in the way things are done. When they have made good changes (a clinic set up to do primarily hip and knee surgeries , privately owned) they have shut them down after a time. Changes do need to be made in the various health care systems in Canada. But not moving towards the US system. The US system is even more inefficient and costly

Exactly what I keep saying. Canada spends less per capita, and so do the nations of Europe. Yet, whenever anyone talks about a US national health care modeled after Canada or Europe, we start getting cries of "socialism", and statements about how much it will cost. So called "obamacare" brought absurd rants about "death panels" and "offing grandma", Hillarycare brought ads showing busloads of Canadians coming south for health care unavalable there. It seems a rational debate on the issue of health care is just not possible.
 
Exactly what I keep saying. Canada spends less per capita, and so do the nations of Europe. Yet, whenever anyone talks about a US national health care modeled after Canada or Europe, we start getting cries of "socialism", and statements about how much it will cost. So called "obamacare" brought absurd rants about "death panels" and "offing grandma", Hillarycare brought ads showing busloads of Canadians coming south for health care unavalable there. It seems a rational debate on the issue of health care is just not possible.

Because this is America and we place a higher value on our freedom. That mentality is the reason this country even exists. If Americans wanted to keep doing things like other countries, we would have all stayed in those countries and never created the greatest nation on earth.
 
Because this is America and we place a higher value on our freedom. That mentality is the reason this country even exists. If Americans wanted to keep doing things like other countries, we would have all stayed in those countries and never created the greatest nation on earth.

Aha! Now I see. We value the freedom to continue to have the most inefficient medical care system on Earth, and be tied to a job not because we need it to pay the bills, necessarily, nor because we find the work satisfying and fulfilling, but because we can't get health insurance any other way. We have the liberty to spend more, and get less. We're unique! That's what makes us the greatest nation on Earth.

Now I get it.
 
Aha! Now I see. We value the freedom to continue to have the most inefficient medical care system on Earth, and be tied to a job not because we need it to pay the bills, necessarily, nor because we find the work satisfying and fulfilling, but because we can't get health insurance any other way. We have the liberty to spend more, and get less. We're unique! That's what makes us the greatest nation on Earth.

Now I get it.

So, the solution, is for government to pass legislation that caused insurance rates to go even higher and then force people to buy health insurance?

Yeah! I'm pumped!
 
So, the solution, is for government to pass legislation that caused insurance rates to go even higher and then force people to buy health insurance?

Yeah! I'm pumped!

That's the solution that the government came up with. No "public option", no, that's "socialized medicine", and therefore unAmerican. The truth of the matter is that health insurance costs have been going up for years, sometimes as much as 30% in a single year, and that "Obamacare" isn't going to stop the runaway increases. We stilll have the most inefficient system of any nation, even after reform. We have fewer people who can't afford medical care, but still have a long way to go to fix the system.
 
They have whatever powers are granted to them by the US Constitution and clarified through rulings by the US Supreme Court. The opinion "of many on the left" or their counterparts, is irrelevant.

in the Lopez case, the Clinton administration made the argument that every single possible action that Congress could ever take that wasn't explicitly forbidden it in the Constitution was permissible under the Commerce Clause. that's hardly irrelevant.
 
Aha! Now I see. We value the freedom to continue to have the most inefficient medical care system on Earth, and be tied to a job not because we need it to pay the bills, necessarily, nor because we find the work satisfying and fulfilling, but because we can't get health insurance any other way. We have the liberty to spend more, and get less. We're unique! That's what makes us the greatest nation on Earth.

Now I get it.

Apparently no you don't get it, you buy what you are told and ignore facts when presented. Healthcare is a personal responsibility not a Federal Responsibility. If anything the states and local communities should address the problem. No Libertarian would ever support govt. involvement in a personal responsibility item. Forcing Americans to buy anything is unconstitutional.
 
That's the solution that the government came up with. No "public option", no, that's "socialized medicine", and therefore unAmerican. The truth of the matter is that health insurance costs have been going up for years, sometimes as much as 30% in a single year, and that "Obamacare" isn't going to stop the runaway increases. We stilll have the most inefficient system of any nation, even after reform. We have fewer people who can't afford medical care, but still have a long way to go to fix the system.

That's because in health care there is the 'got you' tax... as in when you need health care, you need it... and when you go to a hospital they 'got you' and whatever the price is they know you are going to pay.

The only problems come if the 'got you' rates start getting so expensive that it becomes preferable to travel out of country for treatment.



As for the OP : Of course there is a fight to increase the debt ceiling... gotta keep the status quo until it absolutely collapses under the weight of it's own corruption.

It's also beneficial to keep the person in power pushing to maintain this status quo, so that WHEN a Rand Paul comes in and forces a level fiscal responsibility (some 10-20 years too late mind you)... THEN, if Obama succeeds in this fight and gets the ceiling raised it buys time, if Obama fails then it's not Obama's fault, it is 'Rand Pauls' fault and the tea parties...

So brace yourself if you're in the tea party, if Rand is successful on your behalfs, well, you get to take the blame for the economic trouble.
 
Last edited:
senator barack hussein obama in 2006 on why he voted NO to raise the debt ceiling (how many raises ago was that, even i've lost count):

raising the debt ceiling, drawled the erudite chicagoan with his outstanding posture and self composure, is "a sign of failed leadership"

"americans deserve better"

THIS WEEK, outgoing gibbs' attempt to square the contradiction: obama voted NO way back then, sputtered the spokeseman, because HE KNEW IT WOULD PASS WITHOUT HIM

Report rips IRS 'torment' of taxpayers - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

LOL!

obama's vote, it appears, aint worth much

if dr frist had really needed him, gibbs implies, barry woulda been there

pathetic

raising the debt ceiling, a "sign of failed leadership:" barack hussein obama, march 16, 2006
 
That's the solution that the government came up with. No "public option", no, that's "socialized medicine", and therefore unAmerican. The truth of the matter is that health insurance costs have been going up for years, sometimes as much as 30% in a single year, and that "Obamacare" isn't going to stop the runaway increases. We stilll have the most inefficient system of any nation, even after reform. We have fewer people who can't afford medical care, but still have a long way to go to fix the system.

If health insurance costs have been going up for years how are they going to be less expensive by adding many millions of more people into the system? Does anyone seriously beieve that health care costs will go down under government supervision?

Real competition should have been allowed between the health insurers. That's the only way to keep proces under control.

Other countries who have health insurance always had to give up something in order to pay for it. In the west that something was always the military, and with the USA taking over their protection for them, that was never a serious problem. But now the military will decline in the United States just as it has elsewhere. This might not be such a bad thing if other countries can take up the slack, but they seem to be stretched to the limit by their unrealistic spending also.

And of course the health system will become ever more politicized, as it is elsewhere, and the American character will change dramatically. You'll all be California.

There are more NHS staff in the UK than there is in the US military, which should give everyone an idea how Topsy will grow.
 
OK, so we have some Canadians, who of course know more about the Canadian health care system than I do, posting here. Let me ask this question once again then:

Would you trade your health care system for ours?

I've asked that question before, BTW.

Right now, I don't think so.

But several years ago the American system was a far better deal. Canada has an advantage in that the doctors don't have the high insurance rates for malpractice, which certainly makes a difference. Rather than getting several millions of dollars for removing the wrong appendage, you get an apology. Americans visiting our hospitals felt they were run for indigents.

I feel there has been collusion among the health care insurance lobbyists in the States to discourage competition among them by restricting each other to certain states or areas. I have no proof that this is so as I haven't investigated at all, but I am aware that it is restricted and can't understand why.

It is my feeling that health care providers have been less worse than the government takeover will be, and it seems clear that there will be a takeover eventually. When there was a stronger doctor/patient relationship, before big providers got along and health care costs went up, the care was better and people were more responsible. Now people will be making appointments because they are lonely, as happens here in Canada, or every bit of gas is a heart attack. It doesn't seem that this has been well thought out.
 
If health insurance costs have been going up for years how are they going to be less expensive by adding many millions of more people into the system? Does anyone seriously beieve that health care costs will go down under government supervision?

No, costs aren't going to go down by adding millions more peope into the system. That doesn't work. The health care reform that just passed is not likley to control costs.

Real competition should have been allowed between the health insurers. That's the only way to keep proces under control.

Other countries who have health insurance always had to give up something in order to pay for it. In the west that something was always the military, and with the USA taking over their protection for them, that was never a serious problem. But now the military will decline in the United States just as it has elsewhere. This might not be such a bad thing if other countries can take up the slack, but they seem to be stretched to the limit by their unrealistic spending also.


We have to give up something in order to pay for health care also, and what we're paying is more than other nations do. Saying that we'll have to give up the military in order to pay for health care ignores the fact that we're already paying more than those nations with national health care.

And of course the health system will become ever more politicized, as it is elsewhere, and the American character will change dramatically. You'll all be California.

We don't have universal health care in California, yet the state doesn't seem to be able to balance the budget. There must be another reason for this state's financial ills.

There are more NHS staff in the UK than there is in the US military, which should give everyone an idea how Topsy will grow.

Aren't there more people living in the UK than there are in the US military as well? What kind of comparison are you making here?
 
Back
Top Bottom