• 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 utilize the public option?

Will you utilize the public healthcare option?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 26.7%
  • No

    Votes: 19 42.2%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 14 31.1%

  • Total voters
    45
I find the entire conversation surreal! Don't you?
Medicare has financial difficulties because gov't has made too little effort to question physicians judgment about expensive tests and fraudulent billing. Deny care??- Not that I have noticed! Yet, in the same breath people argue that Medicare is gonna kill your grandma by denying care AND that it costs too much. PHEW! Wait till the private insurers get their paws on Grandma: Grandma is going to be outsourced to Mexico....But maybe that is a good thing: warm climate, caring people, plenty of cheap pharmaceuticals.

Personally, and I do take it personally, I don't understand why so many people, here, don't want people like me to have health insurance. Its a mystery.

Yet no one has made these hypothetical arguments; they are again fabricated by you in an attempt to support the weak assertion that Government managed care will lead to better outcomes.

But alas, there are little in the way of facts to support this assertion. What I really want those who desperately support the Obama program to tell me is how this program will not add trillions to the already ballooning deficit and how this will not COST every single person in America even more.

Also answer the already asked questions that if this Government cannot even manage its own budget and protect our borders from illegal immigrants, what makes it logical that they can now manage 1/5 of this nations economy in health care better than the private markets?

I won’t hold my breath waiting for a credible well thought out answer to those questions because it is obvious you want to avoid substance.

P.S. No one is stopping you from getting healthcare, only you are doing that. What we are attempting to prevent is you and the rest of us from becoming dependent wards of the STATE which leads to higher costs, less choice and a growing bureaucratic menace that threatens the foundations of our liberties.
 
How does the "public option" lead to Government takeover of our healthcare system leading to less choice, lower quality and long waiting lists:

(1) First pass a law that creates a "public option" where anyone who wants can OPT to use this instead of the "private" option and subsidize the true costs with the taxes confiscated from wealthier Americans.

(2) Pass laws that restrict the ability of private healthcare providers to make a profit by demanding that everyone pay the same for their insurance regardless of their age and or medical condition, and then state that they have to provide this same insurance to anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions.

(3) Sit back and watch most businesses opt out of providing employees with health insurance forcing many to opt for the Government plan which is being subsidized by wealthier tax payers and businesses and watch as insurance providers go out of business because they cannot make a reasonable return on investment and many of their customers run to the cheaper Government alternative which is, of course, subsidized by the tax payers.

(4) Raise taxes on the insurance providers and levy large fines when they are found to be out of compliance with the growing amounts of legislative red tape they will be forced to deal with.

In the end, there will no longer be any competition because the Government, subsidized by wealthy Americans and businesses, will be able to undercut private insurers and will have regulated them out of business because they can no longer make a reasonable profit.

Now with this scenario, let’s also look at how Government plans like Frances can artificially keep their costs temporarily lower then those here in the US:

(1) Force doctors to a pay level that is 1/3 of what our doctors currently can expect to make.

(2) Limit how many doctors can practice medicine in the country.

(3) Exact huge taxes on the population in a vane attempt to cover the budget busting public option and never ending accelerating costs associated with it.

(4) disallow anyone to be able to sue doctors who work under the public option; anyone have any data that suggests that ANY other nation has the number of malpractice suits we have in the US?

(5) Dictate the rate structures that can be charged by physicians and drug providers.

In the end, the ONLY thing that can be the eventual outcome of such systems is less choice, less innovation, fewer physicians, ever increasing taxation and longer waiting lines for critical care.

I know the fantasy here is that Government can actually manage something; but history suggests that this is nothing more than fantastical wishful thinking on the part of those who would willingly shed their liberties to become dependent wards of the State.

:2wave:
 
In all honesty, the creation of this thread was to debunk Obama's proposed "5%" of people will use the public option. Mission Successful
 
I mistrust Government run programs based on their record. I am constantly amazed that suddenly someone like you thinks that Government will manage 1/5 of the US economy better than the private markets and at a lower cost. There is not one single shred of evidence to support this assumption.
Medicare is underfunded but much more efficiently managed than private insurance and enjoys far higher customer satisfaction.
The FACT that many Americans are not healthy has ZERO to do with our health system. Understanding this is a first step to honest intellectual debate.
Huh?!! Health care costs have nothing to do ill health? The ill-health of Americans is a significant reason for the high cost of health care in the U.S. and far from discouraging bad habits, we subsidize them.
Claiming that healthcare is expensive in a vacuum of comparative analysis is pretty useless.

Yes, behind a mortgage, your car and insurance payments and groceries, healthcare is probably the fourth or fifth highest expense in your budget. But the notion that Government will bring down the costs cannot be supported by any facts or historic data.
I am sure that you are aware that we spend around double that of most developed countries.

At over $25,000 a year for a low deductible policy (family of 3) Health insurance would be the highest expense in my budget...if I could afford it.



This is nothing more than a claim. But the notion that a Government that cannot manage its own budget, prevent aliens from flooding into our borders and with a history of expensive mismanaged policies will now suddenly operate so efficient that the savings will pay for the program requires willful denial beyond the pale.
Again, this thread will become unmanageable if you want to debate every function of government, every government program. I will just point out that many of the successes in government are the things you will not see or experience and therefore have no sense of appreciation. Maybe, you need to travel more so that you can experience truly dysfunctional government. Be sure to drink the tap water where ever you go.

Frances system is extremely expensive and that nation is struggling with the reality that they are rapidly running out of funds and are hard pressed to further tax an already overburdened tax payer.

Yet, much cheaper than U.S. health care

Like most countries, France faces problems of rising costs of prescription medication, increasing unemployment, and a large aging population.[11]
Expenses related to the healthcare system in France represented 10.5% of the country's GDP and 15.4% of its public expenditures. In 2004, 78.4% of these expenses were paid for by the state.
Yet, their challenges are less severe than that of the U.S. and no one dies or goes bankrupt for lack of insurance.
Healthcare Costs and U.S. Competitiveness - Council on Foreign Relations

Factoring in costs borne by the government, the private sector, and individuals, the United States spends over $1.9 trillion annually on healthcare expenses, more than any other industrialized country. Researchers at Johns Hopkins Medical School estimate the United States spends 44 percent more per capita than Switzerland, the country with the second highest expenditures, and 134 percent more than the median for member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These costs prompt fears that an increasing number of U.S. businesses will outsource jobs overseas or offshore business operations completely. U.S. economic woes have heightened the burden of healthcare costs both on individuals and businesses. The Obama administration's first budget includes billions to overhaul health care, and despite the economic downturn, experts see a consensus emerging that healthcare reform should move forward.


The United States spent 16 percent of its GDP in 2007 on health care, higher than any other developed nation. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that number will rise to 25 percent by 2025 without changes to federal law

Here are some more facts to digest:

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers, and academics beat the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes that their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. Before we turn to government as the solution, however, we should consider some unheralded facts about America’s health care system.

1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.

2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.

3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.

4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.

5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.

6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom.

7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.

8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.

9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain.

10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.

Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

Hoover Institution - Hoover Digest - Here’s a Second Opinion

This is beside the point and some of it is debateable . Start a new thread and I will be happy to point out the errors in the list.
 
Yet no one has made these hypothetical arguments; they are again fabricated by you in an attempt to support the weak assertion that Government managed care will lead to better outcomes.

But alas, there are little in the way of facts to support this assertion. What I really want those who desperately support the Obama program to tell me is how this program will not add trillions to the already ballooning deficit and how this will not COST every single person in America even more.

Also answer the already asked questions that if this Government cannot even manage its own budget and protect our borders from illegal immigrants,
You have a problem sticking to the topic. IMMIGRATION has nothing to do with this topic.
what makes it logical that they can now manage 1/5 of this nations economy in health care better than the private markets?
I can think of many ideas that I like better than the H.C. plan considered in Congress but leaving the chaos that exists, in place, will mean certain disaster.

P.S. No one is stopping you from getting healthcare, only you are doing that. What we are attempting to prevent is you and the rest of us from becoming dependent wards of the STATE which leads to higher costs, less choice and a growing bureaucratic menace that threatens the foundations of our liberties.
This topic has nothing to do with our "liberties" unless you are referring to the people chained to a job they do not like simply because they cannot afford to lose the health insurance.
 
You disagree with what? You would rather pay twice as much as someone who works for a large corporation? And be priced out of the market if you have a health problem ?
I disagree with a public option that comes out of my pocket against my will.

So you keep saying but it is a meaningless statement- that is how the system functions unless you are self-pay. Are you uninsured? Then, only then, you are paying for yourself alone...at a premium.
Yes, I am uninsured. And if and when I have/had insurance, it is by choice, which means I would accept being part of a risk pool. Difference with the government is that I have no choice when they decide to steal more money from my paycheck.

NO. Corporations can and do, reward people with healthy habits and penalize people with unhealthy habits. They can and do deny health insurance to people for all kinds of reasons.
Yup. But they can't pass laws that affect everyone in the country. The government can.

Meanwhile, you are the guy who does not want to pay for H.C. for anyone but yourself. Why should MY health insurance premiums (or yours) reflect the health care costs of all the fat couch potatoes that clog the H.C. system? Gov't will never ban junk food but isn't it about time they stop subsidizing the consumption of toxic material?
The government shouldn't be subsidizing anything.
 
You need to reread the post.

ObviousChild is the one it was directed to.

Your post was quoted as proof for Obvious Child, that I questioned your assertion.

YOU are the dancer Captain Courtesy.

You have been running from my question since page two and anyone literate and interested knows it.

And everyone who can read can see that your question was answered and either you didn't like the answer, or you have refused to clarify your terms. Keep dancing, Voidwar. Or clarify your terms. Your choice.
 
I have zero problems with terminology, and because of that, not only do I not need to use underhanded practices like terminology substitution, , , I catch and expose the use of this dishonest tactic every time it is used against me. Just like where Captain Courtesy tried it on page two. . . .

Your post:


My post:


Your attempt at terminology substitution :


I think this makes it pretty evident who has difficulty with terminology.

It is Captain Courtesy who cannot answer the question he was asked on page two, and has had to resort to underhanded practices like terminology substitution

I've already demonstrated how the two are interchangeable. Now, if you believe that they are not, clarify your terms...or keep dancing and trying to posture. You are only making yourself look silly with your continued refusal to indicate what you meant.
 
And everyone who can read can see that your question was answered

A simple falsehood I will not allow to repeat into a truth.

You made up your own question, and answered that instead, and everyone knows it.
 
In all honesty, the creation of this thread was to debunk Obama's proposed "5%" of people will use the public option. Mission Successful

Thank you for reminding us what the focus of this thread is.
 
I've already demonstrated how the two are interchangeable.

At best, you have demonstrated that you don't know the difference.

Or are unwilling to admit the difference, because it exposes exactly the thing you were running from on page two.
 
A simple falsehood I will not allow to repeat into a truth.

You made up your own question, and answered that instead, and everyone knows it.

A complete truth and I will keep stating it to expose you and until you either clarify your terms or stop trolling this thread.
 
At best, you have demonstrated that you don't know the difference.

Or are unwilling to admit the difference, because it exposes exactly the thing you were running from on page two.

At best I have shown that you do not understand what you were asking. Are you ready to explain what you mean by "breach of contract"?
 
A complete truth and I will keep stating it to expose you and until you either clarify your terms or stop trolling this thread.

You know its not, I find it shocking that you are willing to throw away your credibility over it.

What is terminology substitution and why did you have to resort to it on page two ?

Why couldn't you answer the question you were asked ?
 
You are free to point out what was arrogant and attacking or even partisan in my initial post to you:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/56108-would-you-utilize-public-option-5.html#post1058251835

How about my second post to you?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/56108-would-you-utilize-public-option-7.html#post1058251910

Which garnered this arrogant remark:

I'll gladly discuss this with you when you address the issue that I was presenting, which was NOT costs. If you want to have a monologue about costs, which was NOT what I addressed, be my guest, but I have no idea who you are talking to.

It is obvious that your desperate attempts to avoid substance and accuse others of the very tactics you use is nothing more than an attempt to cover up the fact that it is you who plays the rabid partisan in these debates with your selective outrage.



Really; why don’t you be more specific and share with me the exact “extreme rightwing partisan hack rubbish” comments that I made in this thread?

This should be truly amusing to see your personal definition of what “extreme rightwing partisan hack rubbish” means. You make me laugh with your hyper emotional nonsensical babble about what constitutes “extreme rightwing partisan hack rubbish.”



You’re the one engaging in the tactic of personal demagoguery, not I. But I look forward to a more coherent response to the above questions for you.




No one is changing any goalposts except for you desperate attempts to suggest that the debate is what you say it should be.

Again, you are welcome to illustrate where my comments wander off topic in a debate on the “public option.” It will be almost as amusing as your attempts to define what is meant by “extreme rightwing partisan hack rubbish.”




Once again what we have here is another “because you say so.” Alas, the world doesn’t revolve around your personal biases and hypocrisy now does it Captain?



Once again, the one engaging in the tactic of personal attacks and partisan hackery happens to be you. But then how could you notice your own uninformed hackery when you are so blinded by your own arrogance and condescension?




I challenge you to find anyone with a modicum of intelligence to suggest that denial of coverage is the same as breach of contract.

Please, find someone coherent who knows the law. This argument is laughable at best, but is more the realm of juvenile fantasy.




I am sorry, but again your would be wrong and just because you desperately wish to avoid your own erroneous conclusions doesn’t change the fact that you have no clue what this debate is about and what constitutes a breach of contract.



Get back to me when you can comprehend how silly you look claiming that a denial of benefits is the same as a breach of contract, that any of my comments are an example of “extreme rightwing partisan hack rubbish” and how my arguments are unrelated to the thread OP.

I have to laugh at your desperate attempts to bait and troll; they are about as pathetic as your attempts to distinguish a denial of benefits from what constitutes a breach of contract.

:2wave:

Since it is obvious to me that you are unable to understand what this thread is about, I will allow the OP to tell you:
In all honesty, the creation of this thread was to debunk Obama's proposed "5%" of people will use the public option. Mission Successful

As usual, TD, you have been exposed as a liar, and someone who has no intention of discussing issues, but would rather just spew their foolish extreme rightwing partisan hackery...and ignore the issues in the thread.

As for the rest of your nonsensical typical irrelevancy? Basement material.
 
You know its not, I find it shocking that you are willing to throw away your credibility over it.

What is terminology substitution and why did you have to resort to it on page two ?

Why couldn't you answer the question you were asked ?

Answered. You either didn't like the answer, or your terms were unclear, as I have been saying since way, way back. If it's the former, too bad. If it's the later, clarify your terms. Please tell us why you refuse to do the later, if it is not the former.
 
Answered. You either didn't like the answer

You did not answer the question, you made up your own question, and answered that.

Should I go get the quotes that prove I am right and you are wrong, AGAIN ?
 
You did not answer the question, you made up your own question, and answered that.

Should I go get the quotes that prove I am right and you are wrong, AGAIN ?

Shall I explain, yet again, how these terms are interchangeable? Shall I show you how many other folks agree with this. If you do not think they are, explain what you mean. I have been requesting this for pages and pages. There is no need for your resistance unless you have your reasons. Clarify your terms. It's really that simple.
 
They are not interchangeable.

Of course they are. You think they are not? Define your terms so you can demonstrate the difference.



Who could possibly care ? A popularity contest never made the world flat.

There are some pretty informed people here. They too question your terms. Perhaps you are confusing many. Help us all, and clear this up. Define your terms.
 
If they were interchangeable , , , you would not have needed to engage in your original terminology substituton, now would you ?

If they weren't interchangeable, I wouldn't have used the terms. If you believe that they are NOT interchangeable, define your terms so we can see.
 
Back
Top Bottom