• 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:
Whether it is fixed or not in Indiana isn't for you to decide, it is up to the people of Indiana which went back to a red state in November. Mitch Daniels the Governor of Indiana implemented a market based healthcare solution and it is working as evidenced by the support in the state for the program and the Governor. I know how hard this is for your ego to hear that people disagree with you with regards to Obamacare but again it is a state and local issue, not a Federal issue no matter how many charts and graphs you post. The majority in this country are opposed to Obamacare and in particular the individual mandate. That is something you just have to learn to accept.
Click to expand...

On a federal level, we are all part of the decisions made. If the Feds have no role here, the courts will decide. I think they do have a role, and states have been rather ineffective on the whole in tackling this issue. But, as of yet, I still say hawaii has doen the best job, and seeing it on a national level might be a worth a try.
 
Boo Radley said:
On a federal level, we are all part of the decisions made. If the Feds have no role here, the courts will decide. I think they do have a role, and states have been rather ineffective on the whole in tackling this issue. But, as of yet, I still say hawaii has doen the best job, and seeing it on a national level might be a worth a try.
Click to expand...

Why do you have such faith in this Administration that has yet to tell the truth on any issue being successful in implementing Obamacare cost effectively and with improved access? Why would you support a Federal Role in a state responsibility issue? If Hawaii can do it why can't your state?
 
Boo Radley said:
Is something paid for by the state private?
Click to expand...

an account funded from the individual's paycheck and controlled by him or her?

but it "sounds like a universal insurer" to the kinda folks who look to wik for "comparison and overview"

LOL!
 
Conservative said:
Why do you have such faith in this Administration that has yet to tell the truth on any issue being successful in implementing Obamacare cost effectively and with improved access? Why would you support a Federal Role in a state responsibility issue? If Hawaii can do it why can't your state?
Click to expand...

Side stepping again? I said nothing about having faith in anyone.
 
Conservative said:
Who do you propose run the single payer system that you support if not the Federal Govt?
Click to expand...

If you look at single payer systems, it can be done by the government. Or a single private enity. Either is fine. Both would require serious thought and oversight.
 
Boo Radley said:
If you look at single payer systems, it can be done by the government. Or a single private enity. Either is fine. Both would require serious thought and oversight.
Click to expand...

So you think a healthcare program for 308 million people will be run by a private entity?
 
Conservative said:
So you think a healthcare program for 308 million people will be run by a private entity?
Click to expand...

If you were around and paying attention before Clinton was elected, Blue Cross suggested that they be the private enitity to do just that. It's certainly possible, if unliely.
 
Boo Radley said:
If you were around and paying attention before Clinton was elected, Blue Cross suggested that they be the private enitity to do just that. It's certainly possible, if unliely.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of private insurance companies that would love to run a single payer system but there is no evidence there either that they could do it any better for 308 million Americans. You continue to double talk, on one side you are stating that maybe states should be doing this and then on the other you are supporting Obamacare so which is it?

Now per this thread topic we know that anyone promoting the CBO numbers of Obamacare as being accurate are the real problem here and are naive, gullible, and very misinformed. There is no way that Obamacare will cut healthcare costs as the assumptions given the CBO aren't accurate.
 
Conservative said:
There are a lot of private insurance companies that would love to run a single payer system but there is no evidence there either that they could do it any better for 308 million Americans. You continue to double talk, on one side you are stating that maybe states should be doing this and then on the other you are supporting Obamacare so which is it?

Now per this thread topic we know that anyone promoting the CBO numbers of Obamacare as being accurate are the real problem here and are naive, gullible, and very misinformed. There is no way that Obamacare will cut healthcare costs as the assumptions given the CBO aren't accurate.
Click to expand...

I know you want to deal in absolutes. It's easier that way. But, if we can work out states actually addressing the problem, fine. But states are as pushed or more so than the federal government and have not effectively addressed the issue. In their absence, the feds can rightly step in and suggest another solution. As this is something larger than the states, I'm fine with a federal universal payer, be it the government or a private industry.

As for my support of health care reform, I only support it as a first step, and am not willing to go back to no reform.

Now, as for the CBO, I don't think anyone sees those numbers as the perfect and absolute fact. But, such numbers do give us some information. And other sources that have looked at this have also been offered. When you deal in absolutes, as you often try to do, you too often end up wrong, inaccurate.

Does this help?
 
Boo Radley said:
I know you want to deal in absolutes. It's easier that way. But, if we can work out states actually addressing the problem, fine. But states are as pushed or more so than the federal government and have not effectively addressed the issue. In their absence, the feds can rightly step in and suggest another solution. As this is something larger than the states, I'm fine with a federal universal payer, be it the government or a private industry.

As for my support of health care reform, I only support it as a first step, and am not willing to go back to no reform.

Now, as for the CBO, I don't think anyone sees those numbers as the perfect and absolute fact. But, such numbers do give us some information. And other sources that have looked at this have also been offered. When you deal in absolutes, as you often try to do, you too often end up wrong, inaccurate.

Does this help?
Click to expand...

Life is about making tough choices and that seems to be a problem with liberals. If it is such a big problem in the states then it is the people of the states that need to demand it but don't seem to see it as the problem you do. Seems like this is a hot button issue with you yet as I pointed out it is a local issue not a federal issue since the expenses are paid for in the states not by the federal taxpayer. Although your concern about what I pay in Texas is admirable it doesn't cost you a dime.

Again as has been proven CBO has never been right in making projections 10 years out thus they aren't right now. The assumptions are flawed in so many ways and the cost savings aren't going to happen, many of which aren't savings at all, just transferred to the states.
 
randel said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know Gates is looking at cutting, but I think we could spend more on the military. What needs cutting is the fat pig Dems have largely created. I don't think a lot of Dems will go for it, but that's fine. Let them kneecap themselves for 2012. We don't need a D vote in the House, and only a handful in the Senate.

Let Obama and his party run trying to defend a program the American people don't want, and was sleazily passed.

J'us du ette.

Dittohead not! said:
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.
Click to expand...

The rational debate is simple. Answer a few questions:
Since when has government done anything better than the private sector? More effective? Cheaper?

If you want to make Doctors wards of the state, limited by government as to what they can earn, what services they can provide... what about your business? Why not have all businesses under government control? Why just medical practitioners?

Canada is a third rate system with waiting lists that extend from here to eternity. And when the US system is perverted like the Canadian system has been perverted in a few short decades... tell me... where will the Canadians go?

.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Life is about making tough choices and that seems to be a problem with liberals. If it is such a big problem in the states then it is the people of the states that need to demand it but don't seem to see it as the problem you do. Seems like this is a hot button issue with you yet as I pointed out it is a local issue not a federal issue since the expenses are paid for in the states not by the federal taxpayer. Although your concern about what I pay in Texas is admirable it doesn't cost you a dime.

Again as has been proven CBO has never been right in making projections 10 years out thus they aren't right now. The assumptions are flawed in so many ways and the cost savings aren't going to happen, many of which aren't savings at all, just transferred to the states.
Click to expand...

To make tough choices, you actually have to step to the table. Here we only discuss things away from the table. So, none of us make tough choices HERE.

That said, we have a long history concerning health care. This concern didn't just start with this reform effort. It goes back a long way. And all during that time, little has been done. So, it seems time to me for someone to step up. Whether you agree with with Obama or not, he did step up and try to actually do something. But, he did have to work with congress, a real handicap. ;)

And yes, it is an important issue for me. I've worked in health care for many years. More on a volunteer basis these days. My family is heavily involved in health care. While we debate the issue passionately, with many disagreements, one thing we all agree on, from the doctors to the nurses, is that reform, major reform, is needed. And that no one has done anything effective in decades.

As for the CBO numbers, I stand by what I wrote before. Any numbers we get will likely prove different at the end of the day, especially if we do something different. ;) But that doesn't mean we ignore the numbers.
 
Boo Radley said:
To make tough choices, you actually have to step to the table. Here we only discuss things away from the table. So, none of us make tough choices HERE.

That said, we have a long history concerning health care. This concern didn't just start with this reform effort. It goes back a long way. And all during that time, little has been done. So, it seems time to me for someone to step up. Whether you agree with with Obama or not, he did step up and try to actually do something. But, he did have to work with congress, a real handicap. ;)

And yes, it is an important issue for me. I've worked in health care for many years. More on a volunteer basis these days. My family is heavily involved in health care. While we debate the issue passionately, with many disagreements, one thing we all agree on, from the doctors to the nurses, is that reform, major reform, is needed. And that no one has done anything effective in decades.

As for the CBO numbers, I stand by what I wrote before. Any numbers we get will likely prove different at the end of the day, especially if we do something different. ;) But that doesn't mean we ignore the numbers.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see anything in your posts that recognize that healthcare costs are paid for by the taxpayers of the individual states and not the Federal taxpayer thus your argument should be with your state and not the national level. As has been proven with Medicare, Medicaid, and SS managed by the Federal Govt. all cost more than intended and are filled with waste, fraud, and abuse. All are funded by their own taxes however. That is contrary to what Obama has proposed as he attempts again to provide a Federal Solution to a particular state and local issue which it has never been effecient at doing.

Now as for CBO no one is saying not to pay attention to the CBO but I am saying that one needs to recognize the record of the CBO in making projections like this. Those projections have to be made based upon the assumptions given them by Congress and thus are based upon the policies in place now. So much of the CBO projections come from assumptions that Congress has made based upon human behavior and thus the fallacy of their projections. Address the assumptions given and tell me which assumptions do you believe are accurate and which aren't? What do those assumptions mean to the accuracy if proven wrong?
 
Conservative said:
I have yet to see anything in your posts that recognize that healthcare costs are paid for by the taxpayers of the individual states and not the Federal taxpayer thus your argument should be with your state and not the national level. As has been proven with Medicare, Medicaid, and SS managed by the Federal Govt. all cost more than intended and are filled with waste, fraud, and abuse. All are funded by their own taxes however. That is contrary to what Obama has proposed as he attempts again to provide a Federal Solution to a particular state and local issue which it has never been effecient at doing.

Now as for CBO no one is saying not to pay attention to the CBO but I am saying that one needs to recognize the record of the CBO in making projections like this. Those projections have to be made based upon the assumptions given them by Congress and thus are based upon the policies in place now. So much of the CBO projections come from assumptions that Congress has made based upon human behavior and thus the fallacy of their projections. Address the assumptions given and tell me which assumptions do you believe are accurate and which aren't? What do those assumptions mean to the accuracy if proven wrong?
Click to expand...

What makes you think health care is paid for by taxes alone? When the hospitals increases it's billing number because it is treating people who can't pay, is that a state tax or a federal tax that pays for it? No, it's covered by increased insurance premiums. And if youn pay for it yourself, you pay a higher bill at the hospital.

The problem is larger than the states and exists in all 50 states. And states have not effectively tackled the problem. To date, neither have the feds. But I respect an effort more than I do a call to do nothing.

And i see no evidence people don't know the history of the CBO or understand exactly what their numbers represent.
 
Boo Radley said:
What makes you think health care is paid for by taxes alone? When the hospitals increases it's billing number because it is treating people who can't pay, is that a state tax or a federal tax that pays for it? No, it's covered by increased insurance premiums. And if youn pay for it yourself, you pay a higher bill at the hospital.

The problem is larger than the states and exists in all 50 states. And states have not effectively tackled the problem. To date, neither have the feds. But I respect an effort more than I do a call to do nothing.

And i see no evidence people don't know the history of the CBO or understand exactly what their numbers represent.
Click to expand...

You continue to fight a losing argument here, healthcare remains a state and local issue, you want to make it national. Nothing you have stated changes the fact that healthcare costs in the State of TX are paid for by the people of TX either through higher premiums or higher taxes. ER services for illegals' for example are paid for by our taxes and come right out of the county funds. I suggest you focus on your local state and solve the problem there instead of looking to the Federal Govt. solving what is a local problem now.

If people know what the CBO numbers represent it sure isn't evident in the argument that repeal of the healthcare bill will add to the deficit because of the savings in that healthcare bill. Glad to see you don't buy those savings, good for you.
 
Conservative said:
You continue to fight a losing argument here, healthcare remains a state and local issue, you want to make it national. Nothing you have stated changes the fact that healthcare costs in the State of TX are paid for by the people of TX either through higher premiums or higher taxes. ER services for illegals' for example are paid for by our taxes and come right out of the county funds. I suggest you focus on your local state and solve the problem there instead of looking to the Federal Govt. solving what is a local problem now.

If people know what the CBO numbers represent it sure isn't evident in the argument that repeal of the healthcare bill will add to the deficit because of the savings in that healthcare bill. Glad to see you don't buy those savings, good for you.
Click to expand...

What I have argued, and correctly I think, is that the problem is in all fifty states, and that it is a national problem. And certainly if we did go to a universal payer, it would be paid for by every single person in the nation. ;)

And no, while the CBO numbers may not be exact, they do present something to consider. Remember, I linked another who gave who made a similar argument with out the CBO numbers. There is little doubt it will be costly to repeal the refrom. Exactly how costly may be debatable. But there is enough information out there to suggest it will costly. The CBO is just another set of numbers.
 
Boo Radley;1059209336]What I have argued, and correctly I think, is that the problem is in all fifty states, and that it is a national problem. And certainly if we did go to a universal payer, it would be paid for by every single person in the nation. ;)
Click to expand...

No, what you have stated is your opinion and you base that opinion upon the average cost of healthcare in this country vs. other countries around the world. What you ignore are those costs by state vary by state thus in some states the problem is much greater than others.

As for a universal payer system, there is no clamoring for that yet but there will be if Obamacare destroys the current healthcare system which it is bound to do. More and more people are going to call for govt. help when another Obama promise turns out to be a lie, that being of course that if you want your current program or doctor you can keep them. If the doctor or the program go out of business then they cannot keep what they have. Without doctors and a program these people are going to demand a govt. solution.

And no, while the CBO numbers may not be exact, they do present something to consider. Remember, I linked another who gave who made a similar argument with out the CBO numbers. There is little doubt it will be costly to repeal the refrom. Exactly how costly may be debatable. But there is enough information out there to suggest it will costly. The CBO is just another set of numbers.
Click to expand...


If you are going to consider CBO numbers then you need to also consider the assumptions that generated those numbers. Tell me which of those major assumptions you agree with?

How can there be any cost to repeal a program that hasn't gone into effect?
 
Boo Radley said:
What I have argued, and correctly I think, is that the problem is in all fifty states, and that it is a national problem. And certainly if we did go to a universal payer, it would be paid for by every single person in the nation. ;)

And no, while the CBO numbers may not be exact, they do present something to consider. Remember, I linked another who gave who made a similar argument with out the CBO numbers. There is little doubt it will be costly to repeal the refrom. Exactly how costly may be debatable. But there is enough information out there to suggest it will costly. The CBO is just another set of numbers.
Click to expand...

Why the CBO numbers aren't accurate, again, not the CBO's fault but indeed the fault of Congress

Review & Outlook: ObamaCare's Reality Deficit - WSJ.com
 
Boo Radley said:
Not disputed. And not meaningful to the point I made. Remember, I also gave you another source.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative said:
No, what you have stated is your opinion and you base that opinion upon the average cost of healthcare in this country vs. other countries around the world. What you ignore are those costs by state vary by state thus in some states the problem is much greater than others.

As for a universal payer system, there is no clamoring for that yet but there will be if Obamacare destroys the current healthcare system which it is bound to do. More and more people are going to call for govt. help when another Obama promise turns out to be a lie, that being of course that if you want your current program or doctor you can keep them. If the doctor or the program go out of business then they cannot keep what they have. Without doctors and a program these people are going to demand a govt. solution.




If you are going to consider CBO numbers then you need to also consider the assumptions that generated those numbers. Tell me which of those major assumptions you agree with?

How can there be any cost to repeal a program that hasn't gone into effect?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom