• 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!

EXCLUSIVE -- Democrats plan doc fix after reform

Although the memo is of questionable origin, the possibility that Congress will again find itself unable to embrace even a modest degree of fiscal discipline is not. If Congress believes the legislation has merit, Congress should fully offset its costs via some combination of spending reductions/tax hikes.

Given the looming fiscal challenges that lie ahead, I believe it would be a serious mistake for Congress to adopt the legislation without a full offset. Such a move would raise genuine credibility issues about future deficit reduction measures that the Congress might consider.
 
Although the memo is of questionable origin, the possibility that Congress will again find itself unable to embrace even a modest degree of fiscal discipline is not. If Congress believes the legislation has merit, Congress should fully offset its costs via some combination of spending reductions/tax hikes.

Given the looming fiscal challenges that lie ahead, I believe it would be a serious mistake for Congress to adopt the legislation without a full offset. Such a move would raise genuine credibility issues about future deficit reduction measures that the Congress might consider.

This has been a problem for a long, long time. I doubt congress or either party will get the will to actually do what is need on the deficit any time soon.
 
Consumers will never be able to pay the price. Doctors will not go back to trading services for fruits and vegetables. So, everything, including private insurance, shields the consumer. They actually think no one pays for the uninsured and don't see how they do.

When did I ever say that they would trade services for vegetables?
Again your purposefully ignoring reality to fit your political view.

Health insurance is not really insurance but more of a prepayment plan, now.
There are many remedies that have not been tried or even contemplated because they are not politically expedient.

So, the problem is how to have care for the most at the least or more controlable costs. The present system hasn't been effective. And the market has never so much as tried to tackle it. Nor will it.

Your making a broad assumption which, again, does not fit reality.

Costs are going up because consumption is high.
Your going to have to figure out how giving people more insurance and boosting consumption will decrease prices.
Good luck with that, it doesn't work.
Especially, when the nations cultural, dietary and personal health habits are poor.

But this has nothing to do with the silliness you posted earlier. It is a different, though better discussion.

There is no silliness.
You purposefully remain obtuse in order to fit your political wants.
When this bill doesn't bend the cost curve, you will again blame the "free" market and say the only other recourse is UHC.

I know your type, your either ignorant or purposefully ignorant in order to get what you want.
When confronted with facts your brain shuts them out because your unable to accept new or different ideas that conflict your ideology.
 
When did I ever say that they would trade services for vegetables?
Again your purposefully ignoring reality to fit your political view.

Health insurance is not really insurance but more of a prepayment plan, now.
There are many remedies that have not been tried or even contemplated because they are not politically expedient.

Yes, it is a prepayment plan, and one that mostly works. Few would have the money otherwise. Before insurance, the market left a large number unable to be cared for. The more medicine advanced, the less people could afford it. And many traded fruits and vegetables for services. When you talk about people picking up the cost, or feeling it more, this is what you are really talking about, going back to that time period. And doctors will never stand for that. So, you need something else.

Your making a broad assumption which, again, does not fit reality.

Costs are going up because consumption is high.
Your going to have to figure out how giving people more insurance and boosting consumption will decrease prices.
Good luck with that, it doesn't work.
Especially, when the nations cultural, dietary and personal health habits are poor.

No, I'm not. Sure, I'm drawing for a lot of experience and skipping passed much of the arguments that have been thrown down for years. Consumption will not likely ever go down, at least not without some painful changes. Changes no side is willing to make. Again, that reality thing. People need care, including preventive care. And while they won't get it, they also need constraint. The death panel scare obscured something real, that sometimes people have to be told no. It won't be done. At least no more than insurance companies do now. But people will need care and will be unable to afford adequate care without a payer.

There is no silliness.
You purposefully remain obtuse in order to fit your political wants.
When this bill doesn't bend the cost curve, you will again blame the "free" market and say the only other recourse is UHC.

There you go again, leaving the actual discussion for silliness. :doh;)

I know your type, your either ignorant or purposefully ignorant in order to get what you want.
When confronted with facts your brain shuts them out because your unable to accept new or different ideas that conflict your ideology.

Same tune different dance. I get you. But try actually presenting facts instead of supposition. I think we could have a productive discussion if you would do that.
 
This has been a problem for a long, long time. I doubt congress or either party will get the will to actually do what is need on the deficit any time soon.

Bob's alcoholism is a serious problem, but has gone on for quite some time. That's why I'm supporting a decision to pour a fifth of vodka down his throat rather than make any effort to deal with the problem. Because it's happened before, that makes this okay.
 
Bob's alcoholism is a serious problem, but has gone on for quite some time. That's why I'm supporting a decision to pour a fifth of vodka down his throat rather than make any effort to deal with the problem. Because it's happened before, that makes this okay.

No, not OK. Just unlikely to be solved. There's no will anywhere, including among the populace who want the government to do things. They can't even be bothered to be taxed to fight two wars.
 
Back
Top Bottom