• 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's FY 2012 Budget

No one is suggesting anythign of the kind. This is what's wrong with these discussions. Someone on your side of the issue starts making claims, arguing someothing no is arguing. In fact, you in particular, seem to often argue against personal responsibility, suggesting that people not get ehalth insurance and that we pay for their lack of responsibility when they guess wrong and get injured, or ill. Because unless you're willing to turn injuried people away from ERs, you're going to have the rest of us paying thenm one way or another.

Wrong, when someone in my community goes to the ER room, as a taxpayer of this state I get the bill therefore it is my responsibility to pressure the state for healthcare support IF I deem that a priority, not petition the Federal Govt. so your state can bail me out. You seem to ignore that reality.
 
boo, i bowed out of this as soon as the ditto heads appeared.

You bowed out because you cannot stand up to the criticism and dissappointment that is this Presidents budget for the next year.
 
Moderator's Warning:
How about this. I don't care WHY you bowed out, or why anyone thinks anyone bowed out, I care about the topic. Take the off topic one liners and the pot shot insults out of the thread and stick to the topic. Everyone. Last warning
 
Wrong, when someone in my community goes to the ER room, as a taxpayer of this state I get the bill therefore it is my responsibility to pressure the state for healthcare support IF I deem that a priority, not petition the Federal Govt. so your state can bail me out. You seem to ignore that reality.

It simply doesn't work that way. Right now, you are paying for it. Not only that, you'r epaying for failed colelction efforts. So, you pay twice.
 
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You can't have what you can't pay for.

yet, you are paying for it right now. More than you would with something like a universal payer.
 
yet, you are paying for it right now. More than you would with something like a universal payer.

We're paying for it with borrowed money and will continue to pay for it with borrowed money. That is inherently dangerous and irresponsible. And I don't know how you can say it's more than with universal payer - based on what existing and implemented universal payer model? Fine if it's theoretical, but theoretical is just that, theory --- saying such a thing is more of a belief than a fact.
 
It simply doesn't work that way. Right now, you are paying for it. Not only that, you'r epaying for failed colelction efforts. So, you pay twice.

Yes, I am paying for is so why do you care? You think the people of Iowa should pay for problems in the state of TX?

Obama just submitted another trillion dollar deficit in his budget and your goal is to continue to promote more spending with Obamacare. How many times have we argued this point, nothing is going to change your mind or mine and I have history on my side.
 
We're paying for it with borrowed money and will continue to pay for it with borrowed money. That is inherently dangerous and irresponsible. And I don't know how you can say it's more than with universal payer - based on what existing and implemented universal payer model? Fine if it's theoretical, but theoretical is just that, theory --- saying such a thing is more of a belief than a fact.

That's true, but not new. we're apying for our wars that way as well. Didn't even Reagan go for borrowing money? The fact is we've been running deficit spending from the beginning of this country, and a small number of folks have been bothered by, depending on the party in power. Both sides make more excuses when their party is in power.

But what isn't theorectical is that Universal systems spend less. We ahve the rnakings. We spend more. Sure, all countries are struggling because cash is short. But your side seems to be arguing that this is an excuse to keep a system that costs us more and not to adopt one that costs less. I just find that odd.
 
yet, you are paying for it right now. More than you would with something like a universal payer.
Boo, listen to yourself.

I could have slaves right now and pay less for labor than I currently do. Doesn't make it right.

You can sell your freedom and then claim you're "better off", but that seems ludicrous.

And besides, getting more for less is just another way to say "greed". So you want a more greedy system...but liblady thinks government somehow "opposes" greed (or can oppose it, or even knows what greed is!?)

No, I will pay a higher premium if it means I retain the freedom of choice. People died to get that freedom, selling it for a few bucks seems nuts. And besides, the service you get from universal payer is not the same. You aren't paying less, for the same.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I am paying for is so why do you care? You think the people of Iowa should pay for problems in the state of TX?

Obama just submitted another trillion dollar deficit in his budget and your goal is to continue to promote more spending with Obamacare. How many times have we argued this point, nothing is going to change your mind or mine and I have history on my side.

Follow the argument. Personal responsibility would be calling fon people to pay their fair share, their responisbility. You're not doing that. You're excusing them for not meeting their obligation, and you're paying for them not to. Your argument is simply confusing, and not all that logical, and certainly not one that supports personal responsibility.
 
It simply doesn't work that way. Right now, you are paying for it. Not only that, you'r epaying for failed colelction efforts. So, you pay twice.

That may or may not be true. However, it is still less expensive than that of Single payer. But this is about the Macro, not the micro issue of health care as far as the budget is concerned.

Why do you suppose Boo, that the proposed budget only contains those cuts that are insignificant to actual deficit reduction?

And where the hell is Obama going to get over $3 Trillion to pay for it?


j-mac
 
Boo, listen to yourself.

I could have slaves right now and pay less for labor than I currently do. Doesn't make it right.

You can sell your freedom and then claim you're "better off", but that seems ludicrous.

And besides, getting more for less is just another way to say "greed". So you want a more greedy system...but liblady thinks government somehow "opposes" greed (or can oppose it, or even knows what greed is!?)

No, I will pay a higher premium if it means I retain the freedom of choice. People died to get that freedom, selling it for a few bucks seems nuts. And besides, the service you get from universal payer is not the same. You aren't paying less, for the same.

Then amke another argument. The one I responded to was arguing cost.

And nothig says you lose any choice. You're assuming something not proven, hell, not even argued that anyone was for. A unviersal payer system is not one where the government runs the treatment side. In fact, it could be run in away in which you have more choice than you do with your current insurer.
 
Follow the argument. Personal responsibility would be calling fon people to pay their fair share, their responisbility. You're not doing that. You're excusing them for not meeting their obligation, and you're paying for them not to. Your argument is simply confusing, and not all that logical, and certainly not one that supports personal responsibility.

No, it is you that expects the govt. to fund personal responsibility issues in your state. I don't see an answer to the question, why do you care that I have to pay for the uninsured in my state? you continue to miss the point completely, healthcare is a personal responsibility issue, always has been, and if people shirk that responsibility the people of the community and the state are responsible for solving the problem, not a bloated federal govt.
 
That may or may not be true. However, it is still less expensive than that of Single payer. But this is about the Macro, not the micro issue of health care as far as the budget is concerned.

Why do you suppose Boo, that the proposed budget only contains those cuts that are insignificant to actual deficit reduction?

And where the hell is Obama going to get over $3 Trillion to pay for it?


j-mac

No, there is no evidence of that. In fact, we currently spend more than anyone else, including those with a single payer system.
 
Then amke another argument. The one I responded to was arguing cost.

And nothig says you lose any choice. You're assuming something not proven, hell, not even argued that anyone was for. A unviersal payer system is not one where the government runs the treatment side. In fact, it could be run in away in which you have more choice than you do with your current insurer.

Whoa here! assuming something not proven? That is what you continue to do with the healthcare proposal. You buy what you are told in spite of the fact that everywhere in the world healthcare costs continue to rise even with the single payer system. You ignore the cost of the MA program and continue to spout what has not been proven. Still buying the Obama rhetoric just like the 3.7 trillion dollar budget cuts spending?
 
No, there is no evidence of that. In fact, we currently spend more than anyone else, including those with a single payer system.

All relative, we make more than any other country in the world, have more people, higher thresholds for drug and medical procedure approvals, and higher corporate tax rates on business.
 
No, there is no evidence of that. In fact, we currently spend more than anyone else, including those with a single payer system.

We also have a greater population than those with Single payer. However, this is about the budget as a whole, could you stick to the questions I asked? If you want to continue your propaganda in favor of Single payer, may I suggest that you start yet another thread about it? Otherwise stick to the budget.


j-mac
 
That's true, but not new. we're apying for our wars that way as well. Didn't even Reagan go for borrowing money? The fact is we've been running deficit spending from the beginning of this country, and a small number of folks have been bothered by, depending on the party in power. Both sides make more excuses when their party is in power.
No one's saying we shouldn't run a deficit, however, there's a point in time when the deficit is no longer beneficial. We hit that point a while ago, yet the spending went on very merrily, and the new policies did too. The U.S. has been on a druken spending spree for 30+ years, it's got to stop.

But what isn't theorectical is that Universal systems spend less.
Show me.

We ahve the rnakings. We spend more.
Where's the implemented system that shows this?

Sure, all countries are struggling because cash is short. But your side seems to be arguing that this is an excuse to keep a system that costs us more and not to adopt one that costs less. I just find that odd.
I can't speak for "my side", I'm speaking for myself and I want you to show me the hard evidence that supports your claim a universal system pays less.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Note that this is a thread about the Budget, not health care. The comments and discussion needs to keep itself firmly rooted in how health care interacts with the Budget and not stray out of it. The threads already been tried to derailed a number of times...either keep yourself in check, or get off the line of conversation if you're not able to.
 
Here's a nifty chart showing the splitting of the budget and how much an average household would pay for each of these items. Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent - NYTimes.com

My take: bleh at the upper left hand corner and the voting bloc as gigantic as their lazy asses that supports it; I don't want to pay for their damn medicare.
 
Last edited:
I don't know how ANYONE can sit at their computer this morning, and type what you just did here. Are you kidding me? Juvenile responses like 'Oh, I'd like to see this "Master plan" inserting as much snark as possible in written word. Have you been paying attention to his and his administrations actions the past two years? It's been all about redistribution of the wealth, and opportunity in this country to his allies, and friends in some quasi socialist pay to play scheme that is quickly bankrupting this country.




Wah, wah, wah....Why won't the mean repubs let him do what ever he wants to do.....boo boo lip.

Let me tell ya something, liblady was the first to chime in with this banal tripe of "I want, I want, I want....Well, I want a new truck, and brand new house, and a flat screen TV complete with HD Sat service, but we just can't afford it. So, I must make due with my trusty 97 F150, my 30 year old home, and my current entertainment system...Why is it so hard for the lib politicians like Chairman Maobama to do the same?


j-mac

Is that for real? :rofl Me too!:shock:
My trusty truck is burgandy. Your's?
 
Here's a nifty chart showing the splitting of the budget and how much an average taxpayer would pay for each of these items. Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent - NYTimes.com

My take: bleh at the upper left hand corner and the voting bloc as gigantic as their lazy asses that supports it; I don't want to pay for their damn medicare.

And we wish not to pay for you either. So how about we let you pay for you, and I'll pay for me. We can start by giving my to date contributions back, and let me invest them.

However, maybe you'll answer the questions I asked Boo?


j-mac
 
Here's a nifty chart showing the splitting of the budget and how much an average taxpayer would pay for each of these items. Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent - NYTimes.com
My take: bleh at the upper left hand corner and the voting bloc as gigantic as their lazy asses that supports it; I don't want to pay for their damn medicare.

Great link. I really like the per household cost breakdown.

Entitlements, debt (the interest with it), and defense. Anything that doesn't hammer these hard seems out of touch. Sure, we're in an economic crisis that's the excuse now...yet the current situation has been in the makings for a long time.
 
Last edited:
And we wish not to pay for you either. So how about we let you pay for you, and I'll pay for me. We can start by giving my to date contributions back, and let me invest them.


j-mac

Yeah, if we cut off the programs now, no one would get their contributions back.
I don't expect anyone to pay for me.
 
Back
Top Bottom