• 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!

Kasich Steps up to the Plate

calamity said:
He's retiring soon, certainly will not run for reelection. I doubt he's worried about being blamed. I think he is genuinely concerned about the ramifications we all, who dare to look, see on the horizon. Millions of people screwed.
Click to expand...

It is long past time for america to join the rest of the advanced post-industrial world in the 21st century, but not before more people are sacrificed upon the alter of the greed, corruption and inhumanity of a system designed from the beginning to serve a ruling aristocracy via a colonial wealth extraction paradigm.
 
Henrin said:
Why is this man not a democrat? I don't get why someone like him even pretends to be a republican.
Click to expand...

He is right the Aca was a broken disaster but it was meant to be. There is no fixing that mess of a disaster.
THe fix was to push for single payer.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It's a shame the Republicans didn't nominate him as their candidate. He would have won handily, and would have already started healing the differences between the two parties instead of exacerbating them as the actual winner of the election is intent on doing.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Dude, the guy couldn't even win his home state or for that matter any other state in the primary.
 
MTAtech said:
Which proves Republicans weren't locked out of the process the way Democrats are locked out now.
Click to expand...

Then you obvious didn't read. They were locked out of the process.
So liberals are only getting their reward now.

I guess you missed that the statement was false.
 
ludin said:
The problem is the state like all the other states can't afford it.

Ft scraped it because it was too expensive.
I ink it was WI or MN looked at it as well.

They scraped it because it would cost them more than their entire budget.

CA is looking at doing it but they face a multi-billion dollar deficit even with
Using federal money if the government lets them.

The estimated cost for the US is between 4-5 trillion after overhead.
Even if you roll 1.5 trillion in savings you still have a 2.5-3.5 trillion deficit.

You would see tax rates soar to cover everyone which would hit working Americans the hardest.
Click to expand...

Well, then it sounds like spending less, like the Canadians do.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Anyone who is not at or below the poverty level should be kicked off of Medicaid. Expanding Medicaid was a very bad idea to begin with.
Click to expand...

Reversing the Medicaid expansion kicks out many people who are below the poverty level as well.
 
MTAtech said:
Then you need to speak to the CBO, who said two months ago that the ACA was stable. It's only been shaky recently because the insurance companies are worried about what Republicans have threatened to do.
Click to expand...

Umm yea they were pulling out before trump was elected.
This is the same cbo that said rAtes would go down but they have done nothing but increase 10-40% per year?

The same cbo that said it would cost less but wait look at that it is more expensive.

This Is How Much Obamacare Will Cost Taxpayers in 2016 | Money

Let's not forget the impact on jobs.
People wonder why part time work has been on the rise.

Goldman Sachs: Obamacare forcing hundreds of thousands into part-time work
 
ludin said:
Obama says health plan incorporates the ideas of Democrats and Republicans | PolitiFact

And you would be wrong.

A technical amendment
A non-substantive amendment used to correct errors such as spelling, numbering, incorrect coding or directory language
Click to expand...

I remember that the voting for the ACA was delayed so that congressman Bart Stupak and his group of pro life congressmen could amend the bill so it would not fund abortions even through private insurance.

That's more than non-substantive amendment.
 
joG said:
If a State government thinks universal healthcare is an advantage, I should have thought that the State could and should introduce it unilaterally. If a State that thinks universal coverage such an advantage didn't, it would be negligent.
Click to expand...

many states can't afford to provide universal health care. it's better done at the national level, as it is in other first world countries.
 
ludin said:
You mean make our healthcare worse with single payer? Why don't you value your health more than that?
We do not have enough doctors as it is.

I do not see paying 40-60% of my check to the government as a good thing.
More so when I have to get additional insurance to cover the gaps in my crapppy government healthcare.

Don't believe me look at Medicare which requires supplemental insurance.

Next you face the issue of doctors simply not taking it along with drug companies.
So what do you do then?

Other single payer systems doctors are employees of the state that doesn't work here in the US.
Click to expand...

refer to the forty or fifty other discussions that you and i have had on this topic.
 
ObamacareFail said:
No...it does not.
Click to expand...

It does. The ACA (in expansion states anyway) simply turned Medicaid into the program people like you apparently assumed it already was.

Lots of poor people weren't eligible for Medicaid pre-ACA.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Prior to Obamacare, my health insurance was not tied to my employer. It was an individual policy. As for single payer....in this nation it would be medicare expanded to all age groups. It would lead to a massive doctor and equipment shortage and you would still have to pay through the nose for it. Not all parts of Medicare avoid out of pocket premiums....which would continue to go up and up and up. Ultimately it would be Obamacare by a different name.
Click to expand...

other first world nations are achieving the same or better outcomes for a fraction of the cost. we can do the same.
 
ObamacareFail said:
It's odd that democrats and RINOs criticize that method when pretty much everything the democrats did to get Obamacare passed was one sided. Therir message was "Our way or the highway".
Click to expand...

Nothing could be further from the truth.
 
Helix said:
many states can't afford to provide universal health care. it's better done at the national level, as it is in other first world countries.
Click to expand...

Why? The US is much larger and diverse than other first world countries and besides that, the country already spends much more per capita than all but a few of its competitors. That is the main problem with US public healthcare spending.
 
joG said:
Why? The US is much larger and diverse than other first world countries and besides that, the country already spends much more per capita than all but a few of its competitors. That is the main problem with US public healthcare spending.
Click to expand...

the main problem is the design of the system. it is enormously inefficient and overpriced compared to other first world countries.
 
Helix said:
the main problem is the design of the system. it is enormously inefficient and overpriced compared to other first world countries.
Click to expand...

A for-profit system where the consumer's limited choices are seek expensive medical attention or die is never going to find checks and balances withing the free market alone. So, drugs costs thousands of dollars per week, hospital stays cost thousands of dollars a day and millions of people are one illness away from bankruptcy.
 
Helix said:
the main problem is the design of the system. it is enormously inefficient and overpriced compared to other first world countries.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, though, I am not really at all sure, what needs to be done. What is very clear, is that it is not a problem of the government spending too little. That is why it is so dubious, when new legislation targets spending and not structure.
 
calamity said:
I wish the GOP spent at least half the energy they do bashing ACA on trying to fix the systemic problems with US healthcare in general. But, there is no easy "win" there.
Click to expand...

The "fix" involves kicking the lobbies out of the room and writing legislation that addresses HC costs, which is the real problem. The ACA didn't do that, and the abortion the Republicans are kicking around doesn't do that.

Fixing the system would hurt some corporate profits and put a number of people out of work. That's an impossible lift for our government. They have masters to answer to. The ideologies the dems and reps spout have been crafted to benefit those masters, not ordinary citizens.
 
calamity said:
A for-profit system where the consumer's limited choices are seek expensive medical attention or die is never going to find checks and balances withing the free market alone. So, drugs costs thousands of dollars per week, hospital stays cost thousands of dollars a day and millions of people are one illness away from bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

So, we should be talking structure and not spending. Where Obama was almost certainly right is that every American should insure themselves. What he failed to do was to make sure they take out insurance unless they do not want to be forced to pay their medical treatments themselves or do without.
 
calamity said:
A for-profit system where the consumer's limited choices are seek expensive medical attention or die is never going to find checks and balances withing the free market alone. So, drugs costs thousands of dollars per week, hospital stays cost thousands of dollars a day and millions of people are one illness away from bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

i don't have a problem with someone making a profit from health care. however, tying access to the system to specific employment is a major inefficiency. we'd be a lot better off if all basic care was covered through Medicare. then that entity would have a lot more power to negotiate prices. we also need to make it a lot less expensive to become a doctor.
 
minnie616 said:
I remember that the voting for the ACA was delayed so that congressman Bart Stupak and his group of pro life congressmen could amend the bill so it would not fund abortions even through private insurance.

That's more than non-substantive amendment.
Click to expand...

Again fact check says otherwise. Funny that you want to argue with fact check when you guys use it so much.
 
Helix said:
refer to the forty or fifty other discussions that you and i have had on this topic.
Click to expand...

You concession was noted those times as well.
As you never address the argument. You simply repeat the same thing as if it was correct.



Just like now you can't actually address the argument.
There is a reason you do it. You can't refute it.
 
joG said:
I tend to agree, though, I am not really at all sure, what needs to be done. What is very clear, is that it is not a problem of the government spending too little. That is why it is so dubious, when new legislation targets spending and not structure.
Click to expand...

The biggest cost to doctors is preventive medicine and administration costs.
Those account for about 60-70 cents spent on healthcare.

I say we eliminate the middle man and government pretty much.
An all cash system similar to what Singapore does would work perfectly fine.
However it would require a huge overhaul to our tax system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom