• 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 vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

Harry Guerrilla said:
The elderly poverty rate is about on par or a little lower than the average population and means testing should be done, but never the less, they cost more money than what we can afford.

There is no practical "other" option but to reduce services for them on some level.
They already get the most tax dollars directed at them, while at the same time having some of the lowest tax rates of anyone because of their age, which is dumb.
Click to expand...

There is an "other", which is health care reform. This is why it is needed. Prices are climbing faster than inflation, faster than GDP growth. There are solutions.

I'll look into it more.
Click to expand...

Thanks and good luck.
 
Redress said:
There is an "other", which is health care reform. This is why it is needed. Prices are climbing faster than inflation, faster than GDP growth. There are solutions.
Click to expand...

Health care "reform" is a gimmick, other than cutting services.

Not to mention that both our current Medicare tax and any other tax for a medical care system are regressive and discriminatory.
 
MrVicchio said:
No I'm not.

UHC leads to a bureaucratic medical system that puts patients second in the equation. Look at Canada, and the UK. Sure, for basic walk in check up stuff, it's great, the masses are happy. What happens when you need real treatment?


Aha. There is the problem. Look at the problem the UK is facing. Take heart bypass for example, they ended up BUYING a Private hospital over there, to get wait times to three weeks. Three WEEKS! It wads 6 MONTHS before that.

You cannot centrally plan and manage the healthcare of a population, it just doesn't work. You create a dependent population, you drain resources and who suffers? The people.

It's just how it happens.
Click to expand...

Same thing that ahppens here. Right here in the US people ahve trouble getting real treatment. You overstate the actual problems those countries have. No system is perfect, but people wait months here. And polls looking at satitifaction show those countries have a population more satisifed than we are, not less.

Also, you don't have to centrallly manage or plan health care. A single payer system,, which can eb done many different ways, does nto centrally plan or do anything you suggest. Nor would be any more dependent than we are now that we have fire departments. We would merely be able to better provide adequate health care just as fire departments better protect against the devestation of a fire.
 
Boo Radley said:
Same thing that ahppens here. Right here in the US people ahve trouble getting real treatment. You overstate the actual problems those countries have. No system is perfect, but people wait months here. And polls looking at satitifaction show those countries have a population more satisifed than we are, not less.

Also, you don't have to centrallly manage or plan health care. A single payer system,, which can eb done many different ways, does nto centrally plan or do anything you suggest. Nor would be any more dependent than we are now that we have fire departments. We would merely be able to better provide adequate health care just as fire departments better protect against the devestation of a fire.
Click to expand...

Dude you just contradicted yourself.
A single payer, by default, is centrally managed.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Dude you just contradicted yourself.
A single payer, by default, is centrally managed.
Click to expand...

Not the care, no. They do not manage the care. Nothing changes with doctors or hospitals other than the system of payment.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not the care, no. They do not manage the care. Nothing changes with doctors or hospitals other than the system of payment.
Click to expand...

Yes they do, they control the funding for procedures and hand out lists of what is and is not approved for coverage.

They just won't sign blank checks for care, because the budget would be quickly stripped to nothing.
Unless you're saying we should go in to greater deficits to provide platinum care for everyone.

In fact, no single payer system operates how you describe, anywhere.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yes they do, they control the funding for procedures and hand out lists of what is and is not approved for coverage.

They just won't sign blank checks for care, because the budget would be quickly stripped to nothing.
Unless you're saying we should go in to greater deficits to provide platinum care for everyone.

In fact, no single payer system operates how you describe, anywhere.
Click to expand...

You mean like your insurance company? Sure. But you can still buy more if you can afford it. Nothing would change from how it is run today, before reform. The single payer work work exactly like your insurance company, and if you want more insurance, you can buy more insurance, and if you can pay for more, you will still be able to pay for more. Nothing will change with doctors or hospitals or how care is provided from their POV.

And yes, they do. But even if they didn't, nothing would prevent us from creating one. As more than a few physicians have said to me, we would have at least a two teired system here. There are others like that, but it would certianly be that way here.
 
Boo Radley said:
You mean like your insurance company? Sure. But you can still buy more if you can afford it. Nothing would change from how it is run today, before reform. The single payer work work exactly like your insurance company, and if you want more insurance, you can buy more insurance, and if you can pay for more, you will still be able to pay for more. Nothing will change with doctors or hospitals or how care is provided from their POV.

And yes, they do. But even if they didn't, nothing would prevent us from creating one. As more than a few physicians have said to me, we would have at least a two teired system here. There are others like that, but it would certianly be that way here.
Click to expand...

I'm fully aware that you keep on reciting the same nonsense as you have before.

Single payer is not the same as car insurance.
Car insurance is for unforeseen events, while single payer is for expected and unexpected events.

Oh yea the touted two tier system, where the 2nd tier is practically unaccessable to most people.

A single payer system can not provide unlimited care to everyone, that's utopian nonsense and it has not been done anywhere.
 
Redress said:
As best I can figure out, there are no riders nor amendments on the extension bill. However, it actually raises the pentagon budget. You are correct in the rider on the budget compromise negotiations, and yes it is a bull**** move by republicans. In fact, this whole negotiation thing is bull****, and right now it is about two sides who are looking to score points at any cost, and not about solving any problems. Congress and the white house are right now totally and entirely failing the America people and I am pissed.
Click to expand...

So cutting spending to democrat special interest groups is wrong? You show your partisianship
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, they should have acted and done their jobs. And yes, both sides are playing politics and have been all along. And it might well be reasonable for Obama to say enough, reach an agreement. That would be reasonable.
Click to expand...

Obama does not want reasonable. Obama wants it his way
 
ptif219 said:
So cutting spending to democrat special interest groups is wrong? You show your partisianship
Click to expand...

Putting riders on a bill that are designed not to pass is wrong. If democrats put a rider on a bill limiting hand guns so that republicans would not vote on it, that would be wrong too.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm fully aware that you keep on reciting the same nonsense as you have before.

Single payer is not the same as car insurance.
Car insurance is for unforeseen events, while single payer is for expected and unexpected events.

Oh yea the touted two tier system, where the 2nd tier is practically unaccessable to most people.

A single payer system can not provide unlimited care to everyone, that's utopian nonsense and it has not been done anywhere.
Click to expand...

I didn't bring up car insurance here, so odd that you would. Is this to distract?

Right now, much is unaccessable to a fair number of people. Adequate for many of them would be an improvement. unlimited care is a strawman as no one I know is calling for unlimited care. Nor is anyone calling for utopia.

All we're talking about is better access for more people at less cost. Single payer systems allow better access and cost less than the system we currently have.
 
ptif219 said:
Obama does not want reasonable. Obama wants it his way
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting no one else wants their way? Not sure I see your point here. :shrug:
 
Boo Radley said:
I didn't bring up car insurance here, so odd that you would. Is this to distract?
Click to expand...

You brought up insurance, I mistakenly read car insurance into it.

Boo Radley said:
Right now, much is unaccessable to a fair number of people. Adequate for many of them would be an improvement. unlimited care is a strawman as no one I know is calling for unlimited care. Nor is anyone calling for utopia.
Click to expand...

It is accessible to everyone who needs care now.

So if it's not unlimited, who will restrict it? :confused:

You consistently contradict yourself.

Boo Radley said:
All we're talking about is better access for more people at less cost. Single payer systems allow better access and cost less than the system we currently have.
Click to expand...

It allows for less cost by withholding care.
Something you absolutely refuse to recognize.
 
upsideguy said:
Let's not be disingenuous. We have are elected officials for that. You know why the President intends to veto the bill. The Regressives are trying to use the crisis to ram through their social agenda. It is not about extension, its about their ideology.
Click to expand...

No its about money that goes to liberal democrat special interest groups
 
ptif219 said:
Obama does not want reasonable. Obama wants it his way
Click to expand...

Sure thing... the whole raising taxes on the rich a few months ago proved that to the world..... right?
 
SheWolf said:
It's not all one party's fault... reading posts like your's just reminds me how f***ed this country is...
Click to expand...

It is the democrats should have had a budget before the election now we have threats of a government shutdown
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It is accessible to everyone who needs care now.

So if it's not unlimited, who will restrict it? :confused:

You consistently contradict yourself.
Click to expand...

If you see contradiction, you are misreading. And no, we do not have access for all now. Many people lack adequate health care access.

You do realize your insurance company limits care. they don't have death panels either if you're trying to go there. You not being able to pay limits your care. Same with a single payer system. no one is suggesting unlimited care.


It allows for less cost by withholding care.
Something you absolutely refuse to recognize.
Click to expand...

As we limit care here, right now before reform, why do we pay more? It costs less for more than a few reasons, but they limit care no more than we do right now, under our current system before reform. in fact, they limit it less than we do as more people have acess to adequate care.
 
ptif219 said:
It is the democrats should have had a budget before the election now we have threats of a government shutdown
Click to expand...

There wasn't a threat of shutdown until the GOP got involved...
 
ptif219 said:
The GOP wants a balanced budget and to cut the deficit. Notice the GOP wants military paid if government shutdown and Obama would stop that
Click to expand...

it's actually entitled the Troop Support Bill.


I'm thinking that's going to play well in 2012. Obama threatens to veto the Troop Support Bill, stopping our soldiers in the field from getting paid, and then went on vacation to Williamsburg.
 
haymarket said:
Sure thing... the whole raising taxes on the rich a few months ago proved that to the world..... right?
Click to expand...



Obama did to look like he was trying to fix the economy. It did not hurt his special interest groups
 
cpwill said:
it's actually entitled the Troop Support Bill.


I'm thinking that's going to play well in 2012. Obama threatens to veto the Troop Support Bill, stopping our soldiers in the field from getting paid, and then went on vacation to Williamsburg.
Click to expand...

Anybody who tries to sell that absurdity to the American public will be left high and dry appealing only to the True Believers who even themselves know the fraud of it.

Explain why the House GOP rejected a clean bill yesterday which would pay the troops without all the other crap attached to it if they are so patriotic and bleed red white and blue?
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
There wasn't a threat of shutdown until the GOP got involved...
Click to expand...



Thats because the democrats refused to pass a budget last year before the election because they thought it would hurt them in the election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom