• 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!

Would You Support Replacing PPACA with Medicare for All?

Would You Support Replacing PPACA with Medicare for All?

  • Total voters
    43
DA60 said:
2) NO - you are still not getting it. You are quoting ONLY federal transfer payments to the provinces.
Click to expand...

Your entire argument is a tempest in a teapot of your own creation. You got it into your head that I'm referring to federal transfer payments and I never even made mention of this, in other words, you're completely making up some argument, attributing it to me, and then setting out to refute it.

Let me help you out - a provincial government is still a government, just like a state government is a government. Government spending is both provincial + federal or state + federal.

FFS, I gave you the damn link so you could verify any questions that popped into your mind instead of shooting from the hip and making a fool of yourself but apparently you couldn't be bothered to click the link and verify how WHO compiled the data. Here is the exact category title "Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)"

Here is a different category of spending for 2009 "Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)" US= $7,960 & Canada = $4.519.

Now watch this - primitive people often believe that what I'm about to do is magic, but it's not really, us sophisticated people know this thing called math - but to people in the dark about math, this looks like magic.

There is a category labeleld "Private expenditure on health as % of total expenditure on health" and for Canada this amounts to 29.4% of health care spending.

Here comes the magic, but don't be frightened: We take total spending of $4,519 and multiply by 0.294 and we see that private per capita spending in Canada amounts to $1,328. Next we take total spending of $4,519 and subtract the private spending of $1,328 and this leaves us with $3,191 of government spending. And that's the exact same figure I quoted earlier.

So like I noted earlier, I seem to know more about everything than you. Take that to the bank.
 
RiverDad said:
Your entire argument is a tempest in a teapot of your own creation. You got it into your head that I'm referring to federal transfer payments and I never even made mention of this, in other words, you're completely making up some argument, attributing it to me, and then setting out to refute it.

Let me help you out - a provincial government is still a government, just like a state government is a government. Government spending is both provincial + federal or state + federal.

FFS, I gave you the damn link so you could verify any questions that popped into your mind instead of shooting from the hip and making a fool of yourself but apparently you couldn't be bothered to click the link and verify how WHO compiled the data. Here is the exact category title "Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)"

Here is a different category of spending for 2009 "Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$)" US= $7,960 & Canada = $4.519.

Now watch this - primitive people often believe that what I'm about to do is magic, but it's not really, us sophisticated people know this thing called math - but to people in the dark about math, this looks like magic.

There is a category labeleld "Private expenditure on health as % of total expenditure on health" and for Canada this amounts to 29.4% of health care spending.

Here comes the magic, but don't be frightened: We take total spending of $4,519 and multiply by 0.294 and we see that private per capita spending in Canada amounts to $1,328. Next we take total spending of $4,519 and subtract the private spending of $1,328 and this leaves us with $3,191 of government spending. And that's the exact same figure I quoted earlier.

So like I noted earlier, I seem to know more about everything than you. Take that to the bank.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

There you go with that 'you know more about everything' then me schtick...gotta be the most ridiculous and unscientific thing I have read in a while...LOL.


Forgetting private sources, Canadian governments spent $148 billion in 2013. Divide that by 35 million people leaves you with $4,228 per person...miles off your source (even taking currency differences) and inflation.

http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/pdf/internet/NHEX_INFOSHEET_2013_EN

You were wrong...period.

I am done with this with you...also I don't even care about this, I just wanted to ask the following...


NOW ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS FROM YESTERDAY TO YOU...YES OR NO?

OR ARE YOU GOING TO RUN AWAY AGAIN?
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
You were wrong...period.
Click to expand...

You really deserve to be called a name here because you're being very dense. You can't quote 2013 figures, pull some ball park population figure out of the air and then tell me that I'm wrong when I quote 2009 figures calculated by WHO and standardized to all nations around the world. If you don't understand this then I'm pained to treat you like an intelligent person because you're not acting like one.
 
RiverDad said:
You really deserve to be called a name here because you're being very dense. You can't quote 2013 figures, pull some ball park population figure out of the air and then tell me that I'm wrong when I quote 2009 figures calculated by WHO and standardized to all nations around the world. If you don't understand this then I'm pained to treat you like an intelligent person because you're not acting like one.
Click to expand...

So...are you going to answer my questions or not?

Yes or no?

You keep running...and I'll probably keep asking.



Lol...of course you won't answer...just as I thought.
 
Last edited:
Medicare for all would bring health care costs more in line with what the rest of the world is paying, which is to say, about half of what we pay in the USA. Make that Medicare a catastrophic care insurance rather than a pre paid health care, and costs would come down even more. Cutting costs has to be the #1 priority for any health care reform, as we can not afford to continue with the current system, ACA or no ACA.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Medicare for all would bring health care costs more in line with what the rest of the world is paying, which is to say, about half of what we pay in the USA.
Click to expand...

Sweet Jaysus, can your brain not process information that you read? Does information go in one ear and then out the other? What part of this didn't you understand:

Point #2:

In 2009 Canada had a per capita government expenditure of $3,191 (us dollars) for health spending.
In 2009 the US had a per capita government expenditure of $3,795 (us dollars) for health spending.​

Point #4:

In 2009 the Canadian Government spending on health care accounted for 18.3%% of all government expenditures.
In 2009 the US Government spending on health care accounted for 19.6%% of all government expenditures.​

Our government spending on health ALREADY exceeds what Canada spends and they're covering their ENTIRE population. How on Earth do you imagine that extending our government spending to our entire population is going to lower the amount we spend to a level BELOW what we ALREADY spend?

You wouldn't be in a market for a bridge would you? I've got a bargain just waiting for you.
 
RiverDad said:
Sweet Jaysus, can your brain not process information that you read? Does information go in one ear and then out the other? What part of this didn't you understand:

Point #2:

In 2009 Canada had a per capita government expenditure of $3,191 (us dollars) for health spending.
In 2009 the US had a per capita government expenditure of $3,795 (us dollars) for health spending.​

Point #4:

In 2009 the Canadian Government spending on health care accounted for 18.3%% of all government expenditures.
In 2009 the US Government spending on health care accounted for 19.6%% of all government expenditures.​

Our government spending on health ALREADY exceeds what Canada spends and they're covering their ENTIRE population. How on Earth do you imagine that extending our government spending to our entire population is going to lower the amount we spend to a level BELOW what we ALREADY spend?

You wouldn't be in a market for a bridge would you? I've got a bargain just waiting for you.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Stop the baiting.
 
ecofarm said:
The video was based on an article. And the article is being misused, by morons, to claim massive fraud in the Pentagon. Anyone who reads the article can see the errors (of such a tiny percentage) are expected in such a large (government) organization. The missing funds are .001% of allocated funds (over a LONG time period) and represent simple logistic and accounting errors.

You're pushing BS.
Click to expand...


You obviously did not take the time to review the video... its a CBS News piece. The crux of the video is Donald Rumsfeld stating in a 9/10/2001 speech that the Pentagon can not account for $2.3T. That amount of money is 25% of the cumulative Pentagon budget to 2001, not less than 1%. To be certain, this does not mean all of the money is "missing" or is fraud, it means the Pentagon can't keep track of its budget. This is an environment conducive for fraud.



Defense Dollars | PBS NewsHour

You continue to make broad statements that do not address the issue at hand and are not supported. If you chose to challenge a statement I make, kindly do this board a favor and know what you are talking about by being on point and offering up evidential matter when challenged.... anything less is arguing from ignorance, which is BS.

Now, we are wandering from the topic at hand. My original point was to challenge another statement you pulled from you A and was thus unsubstantiated, that Medicare was wrought with fraud. I was making the point that the Pentagon is a bigger problem (yet no one suggests we should shut it down or not spend any more money there).

I suggest you slow down and not post 40,000 times working not from knowledge but from impression and perhaps post 10,000 times and contribute only in debates where you know what you are talking about or at least do the research to learn before speaking.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
You obviously did not take the time to review the video... its a CBS News piece. The crux of the video is Donald Rumsfeld stating in a 9/10/2001 speech that the Pentagon can not account for $2.3T. That amount of money is 25% of the cumulative Pentagon budget to 2001, not less than 1%.
Click to expand...

C'mon, dude. You're being easily fooled here. The missing money was not from one year. That should be obvious to you. You don't even need to read to article to see that.

13 years, and you're still pushing the BS narrative. Someone should have pointed this out to you years ago. It's kinda embarrassing, no?

I suggest you slow down and not post 40,000 times working not from knowledge but from impression and perhaps post 10,000 times and contribute only in debates where you know what you are talking about or at least do the research to learn before speaking.
Click to expand...

You're the one that thinks the Pentagon lost 25% of its budget in one year. Because of a 13 year old article. And you never figured it out.

If this wasn't so hilariously ironic, I'd really feel bad for you.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely, should have been so from the start. Except that medicare only covers 80%, so not good enough, and i wouldn't let states opt out.
 
I'd support replacing PPACA with a House version that both parties could agree to.
Has anyone seen a GOP version of ACA on the floor lately?

And do this replace at exactly the Same time as they repeal it, so folks don't lose insurance due to politics .
 
sedan said:
Absolutely, yes.

I would also point out that a great many other liberals feel the same way.
Click to expand...

This sort of implies that Obama is not the liberal Anti-Christ after all.
 
Democrats should love it because it helps the poor. Republicans should love it because it helps business save payroll costs related to health insurance. Immigrants should love it because chances are, that's how it was done in their country. Rich people should love it because they can save money on medical expenses. Poor people should love it because they don't have to look at a bill that they have no way of paying. The insured should love it because they will save money on insurance premiums every month. The uninsured should love it because they will feel safe knowing that a medical situation will no longer drop a nuclear bomb on their personal finances.

There wasn't an option for "HELL YEAH, WHY HASN'T IT ALREADY BEEN DONE?"

Who would lose if Medicare was expanded to cover every single person? OH YEAH!! ONLY ONE VERY IMPORTANT PLAYER IN THIS GAME!!!!! WHAT WAS I THINKING? You can't annhilate the insurance industry and the reason is simple. The reason you can't annhilate the insurance industry is just because.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom