• 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"

j-mac said:
Great, so we have established that liberals lie when it comes to promises surrounding cuts.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Says who? You seem to make a leap to me.
 
Zyroh said:
sorry to inform you but defense is actually much closer to 1/3 of the budget. it's pretty clear that DoD is 1/6 of it, but once you add all the other stuff that's directly related to defense, such as homeland security, state department payoffs, energy department's nuclear weapons development and others it gets to at least 1/3 of the budget. when you add the interest payments on the debt this causes it goes even higher. DoD spending is about the same as the rest of the world's defense spending combined. 50% of global defense spending for 5% of the population. you two sit here and squabble about how much more we pay for health care. how about how much more we pay to protect us? for the rest of the world to match us percapita they'd have to increase their spending ten fold.
Click to expand...

I have to admit you ahve a point. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Let's stay on topic. You made calims about the MA system which are not quite true. That's the issue.

Now, as the entire nation is struggleing with health care, and that is what you want to cahnge the subject to, I argue it is a national problem. And it likely can't be fixed until tackled nationally, most likley with a single payer system. this would help remove business from providing health insurance, and make them more competative, and allow a great pool of premium payers who are well to help cover those who are not.

We've been through this you know. . . .:coffeepap
Click to expand...

That is a lie, I did not make claims that have not been proven by the state, higher costs and higher ER usage because people cannot get into see a doctor.
 
Conservative said:
GHW Bush did the same thing, agreed to the tax increases but didn't get the promised spending cuts.
Click to expand...

yup. which is why as we now face a much much much bigger deficit problem, we need to make sure we see deep, significant, and lasting spending cuts long before we ever agree to tax increases.
 
Conservative said:
That is a lie, I did not make claims that have not been proven by the state, higher costs and higher ER usage because people cannot get into see a doctor.
Click to expand...

Read it carefully. INpatient and out patient areas have been established at hospitals. People are nto going there for a lack of doctors, but because they have changed the nature of hospitals. Some see it as faster. We have done the same thing here in Iowa without the MA reform. You have not proven anything yet.
 
Zyroh said:
sorry to inform you but defense is actually much closer to 1/3 of the budget. it's pretty clear that DoD is 1/6 of it, but once you add all the other stuff that's directly related to defense, such as homeland security, state department payoffs, energy department's nuclear weapons development and others it gets to at least 1/3 of the budget. when you add the interest payments on the debt this causes it goes even higher. DoD spending is about the same as the rest of the world's defense spending combined. 50% of global defense spending for 5% of the population. you two sit here and squabble about how much more we pay for health care. how about how much more we pay to protect us? for the rest of the world to match us percapita they'd have to increase their spending ten fold.
Click to expand...

Even if Defense is a 1/3 of the budget that means that 2/3 goes for secondary issues that our Founders believed belonged in the states not the Central Govt. Read the Preamble, Provide for the Common Defense and PROMOTE Domestic Welfare. Our Politicians have made promote provide and then they apply the general welfare clause to individuals instead of the country.
 
Boo Radley said:
Read it carefully. INpatient and out patient areas have been established at hospitals. People are nto going there for a lack of doctors, but because they have changed the nature of hospitals. Some see it as faster. We have done the same thing here in Iowa without the MA reform. You have not proven anything yet.
Click to expand...

Read the numbers, healthcare costs are up as are ER expenses AFTER MA Universal Healthcare
 
cpwill said:
yup. which is why as we now face a much much much bigger deficit problem, we need to make sure we see deep, significant, and lasting spending cuts long before we ever agree to tax increases.
Click to expand...

this is exactly why no one, no matter what party, is for a smaller government until they're for cutting spending. whether it's defense or other, if you increase spending, even if you cut taxes, you're increasing the size of government. debt is just taxes we gotta pay in the future. hell it's worse, it's the bill we gotta pay plus interest, and it's passing the bill on to someone else.
 
Conservative said:
Read the numbers, healthcare costs are up as are ER expenses AFTER MA Universal Healthcare
Click to expand...

Do you have a comparison with before? And again, that's not exactly what the numbers say. Read your article again:

Greater availability and use of academic medical centers for both inpatient and outpatient hospital based-services, and use of outpatient hospital-based facilities for some services that could be provided in less costly settings;

It does not report that there are no doctors available.
 
Conservative said:
Even if Defense is a 1/3 of the budget that means that 2/3 goes for secondary issues that our Founders believed belonged in the states not the Central Govt. Read the Preamble, Provide for the Common Defense and PROMOTE Domestic Welfare. Our Politicians have made promote provide and then they apply the general welfare clause to individuals instead of the country.
Click to expand...

hey, i agree with you on the rights and responsibilities of the states. but you've gotta be blind if you want smaller government but ever increasing defense spending. a quick history lesson for you, conservatives weren't war mongers till the 60's and william f buckley. conservatives like to note that jfk wouldn't be a democrat today, well any conservative from the 30's-50's wouldn't be a republican today because they advocate preemptive wars, nation building, and global policing.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Do you have a comparison with before? And again, that's not exactly what the numbers say. Read your article again:

Greater availability and use of academic medical centers for both inpatient and outpatient hospital based-services, and use of outpatient hospital-based facilities for some services that could be provided in less costly settings;

It does not report that there are no doctors available.
Click to expand...

The state of MA has the numbers, get them, the state shows spending on healthcare UP and ER usage up. You choose to bury your head in the sand but if this is what you want, then implement it in your state and leve mine alone. It will never pass in TX.
 
Zyroh said:
hey, i agree with you on the rights and responsibilities of the states. but you've gotta be blind if you want smaller government but ever increasing defense spending. a quick history lesson for you, conservatives weren't war mongers till the 60's and william f buckley. conservatives like to note that jfk wouldn't be a democrat today, well any conservative from the 30's-50's wouldn't be a republican today because they advocate preemptive wars, nation building, and global policing.
Click to expand...

9/11 cost this country over a trillion dollars according to GAO. Do we need a 660 billion Defense Dept. maybe now but then again we don't need a 3.6 trillion dollar govt.
 
Conservative said:
9/11 cost this country over a trillion dollars according to GAO. Do we need a 660 billion Defense Dept. maybe now but then again we don't need a 3.6 trillion dollar govt.
Click to expand...

using 9/11 to justify extra spending won't go far with me. it's been a flawed argument for almost a decade now, that's not gonna change.
 
Conservative said:
The state of MA has the numbers, get them, the state shows spending on healthcare UP and ER usage up. You choose to bury your head in the sand but if this is what you want, then implement it in your state and leve mine alone. It will never pass in TX.
Click to expand...

Of course they would be up as more people are covered. But that isn't your claim. You claim there are no doctors to see them. Please support that.
 
Zyroh said:
using 9/11 to justify extra spending won't go far with me. it's been a flawed argument for almost a decade now, that's not gonna change.
Click to expand...

Whether it changes your mind or not is irrelevant, those are the numbers. The purpose of our govt. is to protect and defend us and to relive the reasons for going into Iraq or Afghanistan now are worthless. Obama has increased the defense budget which is higher than any Bush defense budget including supplementals. I have a bigger problem with entitlements than I have with Defense, always have and always will
 
Boo Radley said:
Of course they would be up as more people are covered. But that isn't your claim. You claim there are no doctors to see them. Please support that.
Click to expand...

My claim is that there aren't enough doctors to keep people out of the ER's and that is a fact. MA has the highest number of doctors per capita in the nation and still cannot meet the demand for the citizens. I call that a failure, greater access but higher costs and more ER usage?
 
Conservative said:
My claim is that there aren't enough doctors to keep people out of the ER's and that is a fact. MA has the highest number of doctors per capita in the nation and still cannot meet the demand for the citizens. I call that a failure, greater access but higher costs and more ER usage?
Click to expand...

Prove that. I'll wait a while. :coffeepap
 
Conservative said:
I have shown you higher ER costs and usage in MA. How do you explain it?
Click to expand...

Not the same thing. MA, like all of the country, has a shortage of primary care physicians. I beleive some 30 to 40 percent of MA primary care physicians have stopped taking patients. But that would mean some 60 to 70 percent have not. Also, this doesn't address any other doctor.

Like the NCPA, you leap to a conclusion without fully supporting it.

As for explaining it, it's simple. More people are covered, so more are seeking service. At least now those services are paid for, meaning the hospital doesn't have to raise costs to pay for those in the ER, or more likely the outpatient treatment center off the ER. ;)
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Not the same thing. MA, like all of the country, has a shortage of primary care physicians. I beleive some 30 to 40 percent of MA primary care physicians have stopped taking patients. But that would mean some 60 to 70 percent have not. Also, this doesn't address any other doctor.

Like the NCPA, you leap to a conclusion without fully supporting it.

As for explaining it, it's simple. More people are covered, so more are seeking service. At least now those services are paid for, meaning the hospital doesn't have to raise costs to pay for those in the ER, or more likely the outpatient treatment center off the ER. ;)
Click to expand...

Look, this is going nowhere. If you support the MA program then work to implement it in your state. There is no need for a national program as the majority in this country don't want it. Sounds to me like you cannot sell it in Iowa therefore you want the Federal Govt. to mandate it. Not going to happen, unconstitutional, IMO.
 
Conservative said:
Look, this is going nowhere. If you support the MA program then work to implement it in your state. There is no need for a national program as the majority in this country don't want it. Sounds to me like you cannot sell it in Iowa therefore you want the Federal Govt. to mandate it. Not going to happen, unconstitutional, IMO.
Click to expand...

As I said, it is a national problem and not just a state problem. Remember, federal dollars are used by states right now. Ask your state about losing those dollars.

But, I take you're conceding that you can't prove your claims. Accepted.
 
Boo Radley said:
As I said, it is a national problem and not just a state problem. Remember, federal dollars are used by states right now. Ask your state about losing those dollars.

But, I take you're conceding that you can't prove your claims. Accepted.
Click to expand...

Who are you to call it a national problem, that is your opinion which you are entitled to. Polls show the vast majority don't agree with you.

You call it a problem because you believe the cost per capita is too high but I have seen nothing that qualifies you to tell someone else that something costs too much for them. Nor have you identified the costs that you claim are too high and what can be done to lower them. Instead you support a program that the world has shown is increasing costs.
 
Conservative said:
Who are you to call it a national problem, that is your opinion which you are entitled to. Polls show the vast majority don't agree with you.

You call it a problem because you believe the cost per capita is too high but I have seen nothing that qualifies you to tell someone else that something costs too much for them. Nor have you identified the costs that you claim are too high and what can be done to lower them. Instead you support a program that the world has shown is increasing costs.
Click to expand...

Who am I? A reasonably intelligent human citizen who can look at all 50 states and see what is happening. Not one state has handle on all of this. Business has trouble competing internationally in part because of having to provide health care. Too many lack adequate access, and people getting care and can't pay run up cost everywhere.

BTW, didn't I ask you somewhere if you were willing to deny care to people who need care if they couldn't pay? Even emergent care? If not, we have to seek a solution other than the individual.
 
Zyroh said:
Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Obamacare

just to keep you two going!
Click to expand...

Naw,done, nothing changes the mind of an ideologue. I believe healthcare is a personal responsibility and best handled in the states, Boo believes it is a national problem and thus claims to be an expert on what others believe is a problem. not worth any more effort but thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom