Why be against universal healthcare?

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't know how to evaluate such a claim. How well have I portrayed them? What does "well" mean here? From what I know of Europe and Canada, people in those countries do get better care than the US does. Generally speaking, their health statistics are better, and they pay a smaller percentage of their GDP on health care. I've had very good health care over my lifetime, because I have been employed most of my life in jobs that provided health care. I know too many people who have not been so lucky.


I have no problem with your pursuit of being a "real man", whatever that means, but this is not about you and your personal choices. The problem is that private insurance has failed to deliver quality health care for a reasonable price. Corporate greed and corruption has overwhelmed us. Most of the country has decided that the system needs to change. I wish that we could have had Medicare for everyone, and you have endorsed that position yourself. I am not going to blame Obama for bringing us an imperfect system. We could have had better, but conservatives have fought it tooth and nail for decades. So this appears to be the best we can achieve at this point in time: expensive compulsory private insurance embedded in a patchwork quilt of overly complicated rules. That is what Republicans advocated in place of single-payer for decades, until Democrats abandoned single-payer and gave us the Republican plan. That's when they decided to abandon it.

And it helps to mention that a similar system has been implemented in Massachusetts by Ted Kennedy and Mit Romney. Not only is that system in effect but many of the dollars that keep that healthcare system going comes from federal funds, despite Romney's and republican's claims of big government being involved in your healthcare decisions.....

Additionally...the architects of Romneycare are the ones who help the administration craft the ACA (ObamaCare).....

 

[Reverend Rick]

Really? Why be against universal healthcare?! If we could afford TRILLIONS of dollars that was spent on a war that would NOT have happened if Bush was elected...we could have universal healthcare right now! Heck, we could have wiped out world hunger. Don't get me started. Universal healthcare should be a right for all citizens of the world. Thank you.:thud:

You have absolutely no concept of money do you? Obama has spent twice as much money as Bush ever did in less than 5 years compaired to his 8.

Do you even have a clue how many tens of trillions it would take to end world hunger?

Hell, we can't even get the whole planet clean drinking water for God's sake. :no:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Really? Why be against universal healthcare?! If we could afford TRILLIONS of dollars that was spent on a war that would NOT have happened if Bush was elected...we could have universal healthcare right now! Heck, we could have wiped out world hunger. Don't get me started. Universal healthcare should be a right for all citizens of the world. Thank you.:thud:

The crazy thing is one person here is going on about us borrowing money...and here's the thing...The two wars were not paid for and Medicare D was not paid for. This money had to be borrowed...That's part of the reason we have a high national debt (not to be confused with the "deficit" that's actually dropping).....

But you're correct....If Bush didn't blow through a surplus, go to war and medicare part d we could have implemented Universal Healthcare in this country....

It still can be done if we consolidate or eliminate various government agencies. That would reduce cost. Consolidate or reduce redundant government programs. That would cut cost.

Limit and eliminate various tax expenditures (subsidies, deductions) we given in the form of corporate welfare to companies that don't need it)...we could save upwards of a $100 Billion or more.

I've never really been a big fan of the Cato Institute but many of their articles and studies are spot on with what economist on the left have presented over the years....
Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget | Cato Institute

So we should conclude that when people say we can't afford Universal Healthcare just know that they're either lying or simply don't know what they're talking about....maybe both.....:sad:

 

[Reverend Rick]

Would it be ignorant or a lie to say part D is unsustainable?

 

[Marie75]

At least Obama ended the war. Of course he has to spend money, we are in DEBT because of Bush! I still believe that universal healthcare is a necessity.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You have absolutely no concept of money do you? Obama has spent twice as much money as Bush ever did in less than 5 years compaired to his 8.

:biglaugh:

factcheck.org : Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?

Try this one below...

Obama spending binge never happened - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch Page1

Obama spending binge never happened - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch Page2

Or this one here...
Did President Obama spend more money than all the former presidents of the US combined

 

[MysticSang'ha]

At least Obama ended the war. Of course he has to spend money, we are in DEBT because of Bush! I still believe that universal healthcare is a necessity.

Weeellllll, I gotta teensy weensy problem with the drone attacks and all that have occurred under Obama's watch.

But I find there is a trend of a minimization of problems when somebody's favorite person is in office.

I don't see Obamacare as being close to a single-payer system, but another way to benefit privatized health care insurance companies even more while hanging patients out to dry.

My personal contention is that our debt and deficit is not result of any one mitigating factor financially, and it certainly has not occurred with one party in office and one party out (remember that there's always Congress to help things along), and it REALLY has not been the result of anything in this millenium. Being unable to afford some of the basics for many Americans has been a problem since our country no longer supplied our own oil, no longer manufactured items in the country, created fiat currency as the basis for our economic system, created the mass marketing to the public on our unofficial "religion" of mass consumerism, look at higher education and the humanities and earth sciences with suspicion, and modeled our health care system to fix emergency situations alone rather than model it as a preventive measure along with our outstanding emergency care (which I think triage care in America is so good at, since so many patients utilize it).

It isn't as simple as being unable to afford health care because of a single mathematical equation (we have x number of dollars in the bank and health care costs 2x, well DUH!!). It's a culture built around the consumerist Self who would rather be thought of as special as a country, a culture, and as a people, and wish everybody else would just celebrate us as much as we celebrate ourselves. And while we are boasting about how great and wonderful we are, people still need to eat and drink clean water, have adequate shelter and security from getting maimed or killed, and have access to medicine.

I think we should stop boasting and start creating again.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

At least Obama ended the war. Of course he has to spend money, we are in DEBT because of Bush! I still believe that universal healthcare is a necessity.

Him ending the wars is news to me.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Him ending the wars is news to me.

Him pulling troops out of Iraq. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Him drawing down in Afghanistan. There's nothing more that can be done with either of these countries. We're wasting money and putting soldiers in harms way..even allowing them to be killed and it has to stop.

Even if both countries go to the crapper after our troops are gone it's not like having us there will help the situation any better.....The previous administration screwed it up more than what they were. Where not wanted there....so it's time to go.

But we're digressing from the OP......

 

[Pagan_Patriot]

At least Obama ended the war. Of course he has to spend money, we are in DEBT because of Bush! I still believe that universal healthcare is a necessity.

Lol. The war would happen with or without Bush.

Edit: Ok, that's my last unrelated post xd

 

[Marie75]

Him pulling troops out of Iraq. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Him drawing down in Afghanistan. There's nothing more that can be done with either of these countries. We're wasting money and putting soldiers in harms way..even allowing them to be killed and it has to stop.

Even if both countries go to the crapper after our troops are gone it's not like having us there will help the situation any better.....The previous administration screwed it up more than what they were. Where not wanted there....so it's time to go.

But we're digressing from the OP......

:clap frubals!

 

[Copernicus]

I don't believe it is very honest to blame the affordable health care act on the Republicans when not a single GOP member voted for this plan,

But that isn't what I did. I said that it originally came from the health care plan that Republicans have advocated for decades. This was the same program that Republicans proposed as an alternative to, and excuse for opposing, Hillary Clinton's much better proposal in the early 1990s. What is less than honest is to pretend that the GOP unanimously opposed it because they disagreed in principle with a formerly bipartisan plan that their side originally crafted. We all know why they refused to vote for it. But for the politics, they would have been happy to pass it and take credit for it.

Could it be that the Democrats are not that far from being in bed with the insurance companies as well? Did they pass this legislation with the best interests of the American people or their insurance bedfellows?

Not as intimately in bed as Republicans, but I certainly would not deny it. Do you think I have forgotten Max Baucus's role in all of this and which party he belongs to? This was an insurance industry bill. They love the fact that the insurance is compulsory and there is no public option to help reduce premiums. That was blocked with the unanimous support of Republicans and a few turncoat Democrats.

While I basically oppose socialised medicine, if we are going to go down that road we should have done this right and extended medicare for all rather than increasing the IRS payroll and hiring more redundancy in the Federal Government.

We fully agree in this. Where we disagree is in the matter of having a universal health care system at all. You would prefer we not go down that road, and I would prefer we did. The majority of Americans want to move in that direction.

The affordable health care act does not insure all Americans and penalises the very people it is suppose to help.

The act is flawed. No question about it. It is a big improvement over what it replaced, however. It will cover many more Americans than before. I wish that we had just extended Medicare to everyone, but Republicans unanimously opposed that, and Democrats could not muster enough votes in their own ranks.

How is this any different than passing a law that makes it illegal to not have housing to help the homeless? It is ignorant logic and a major cluster truck.

How is this like passing a law that makes it illegal to not have housing to help the homeless? You'll have to walk us through your reasoning on that one.

 

[Marie75]

Weeellllll, I gotta teensy weensy problem with the drone attacks and all that have occurred under Obama's watch.

But I find there is a trend of a minimization of problems when somebody's favorite person is in office.

I don't see Obamacare as being close to a single-payer system, but another way to benefit privatized health care insurance companies even more while hanging patients out to dry.

My personal contention is that our debt and deficit is not result of any one mitigating factor financially, and it certainly has not occurred with one party in office and one party out (remember that there's always Congress to help things along), and it REALLY has not been the result of anything in this millenium. Being unable to afford some of the basics for many Americans has been a problem since our country no longer supplied our own oil, no longer manufactured items in the country, created fiat currency as the basis for our economic system, created the mass marketing to the public on our unofficial "religion" of mass consumerism, look at higher education and the humanities and earth sciences with suspicion, and modeled our health care system to fix emergency situations alone rather than model it as a preventive measure along with our outstanding emergency care (which I think triage care in America is so good at, since so many patients utilize it).

It isn't as simple as being unable to afford health care because of a single mathematical equation (we have x number of dollars in the bank and health care costs 2x, well DUH!!). It's a culture built around the consumerist Self who would rather be thought of as special as a country, a culture, and as a people, and wish everybody else would just celebrate us as much as we celebrate ourselves. And while we are boasting about how great and wonderful we are, people still need to eat and drink clean water, have adequate shelter and security from getting maimed or killed, and have access to medicine.

I think we should stop boasting and start creating again.

I just think he ignored it because he isn't a war monger sp? He's not going to be perfect because our situation is not perfect, so we can't blame him for what Bush left us with. I think he's doing the best he can, what more can we expect? With all due respect MysticSanga...:bow:

 

[Marie75]

I'd add in some more additional details about my beliefs about universal healthcare, but I have a headache.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He sorta has a point thought... We should use those parts for the young people who need them, and will hopefully contribute to society one day and not have to suffer all their lives. If I'm 80 or older, what am I going to need new limbs for? I would rather have a youngster have it... I know it sounds bad, but for the sake of the country, we need to save organs for the young, and not for the old.

Do you think that there are masses of 20-year-olds who need artificial hips or knees but have to go without because the seniors snap them all up?

 

[Pagan_Patriot]

Do you think that there are masses of 20-year-olds who need artificial hips or knees but have to go without because the seniors snap them all up?

There could be. I didn't say there are but incase there are, we should save the organs for them. If there aren't, then use them on whomever you want.

 

[Riverwolf]

There could be. I didn't say there are but incase there are, we should save the organs for them. If there aren't, then use them on whomever you want.

This'll be a moot point in the next few decades, anyway, as transhuman augmentation draws ever closer to being affordable(ish) reality.

 

[Apex]

There could be. I didn't say there are but incase there are, we should save the organs for them. If there aren't, then use them on whomever you want.

There is no "saving" donor organs... You use them or lose them, within hours in most cases.

 

[Copernicus]

Do you think that there are masses of 20-year-olds who need artificial hips or knees but have to go without because the seniors snap them all up?

There could be. I didn't say there are but incase there are, we should save the organs for them. If there aren't, then use them on whomever you want.

No, there couldn't be. Most young people with those needs are soldiers who have been injured in battle, and they are cared for directly by the US government and the VA after discharge. Medicaid is welfare. Medicare is not. Medicare is paid for out of payroll taxes. In other words, it is an "earned benefit", not a welfare handout. When you reach an age where your joints start to wear out, that is when you need those procedures, and the people who have gone through the system have usually spent many more years paying for it out of their taxes than the young people who do not need the procedures quite as often. Indeed, many young people are not eligible and cannot afford them, because they have no health insurance and do not qualify for medical care. (This will change next year when Obamacare really kicks in.)

The real problem with Social Security and Medicare, which are currently solvent, is that the government has forced those programs to lend the government money so that it could get its hands on money to fund programs it did not want to raise taxes to fund. Now that the government owes this huge public debt to its senior citizens, it is looking for ways to pretend that the programs are welfare handouts instead of earned benefits. Most Americans mistakenly think of those programs as welfare.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The real problem with Social Security and Medicare, which are currently solvent, is that the government has forced those programs to lend the government money so that it could get its hands on money to fund programs it did not want to raise taxes to fund. Now that the government owes this huge public debt to its senior citizens, it is looking for ways to pretend that the programs are welfare handouts instead of earned benefits. Most Americans mistakenly think of those programs as welfare.

This is awesome and one of the better takes on the issue I've seen in a long time.....