Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
The real question is Polish Leppy, what would you do to fix our healthcare system? You seem to think that you are great at critiquing the ACA but you have given actually zero info on what you would do to fix it. To add to that, just repealing ACA doesn't fix it. Our healthcare system has been broken for a long time.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President? - Forbes
Among many Republican starndards of success, Obama has succeeded economically.
during the presidential primaries Tim Pawlenty said a Republican could get 5% growth, Romney said a Republican could get 6% unemployment and Gingrich claimed a Republican could get gas to $2.50.
Remember Tim Pawlenty? A couple of years ago, the former two-term governor of Minnesota ran an ill-fated Republican presidential campaign, which collapsed a few months before the Iowa caucuses.

Pawlenty’s national operation didn’t contribute much to the national conversation, but whenever his name comes up, I always have the same thought: he’s the guy who said he could boost economic growth to 5% GDP.

Yes, in May 2011, the Republican presidential hopeful unveiled a massive tax-cut plan, which Pawlenty said would move the country towards his specific target: “Let’s start with a big, positive goal. Let’s grow the economy by 5 percent, instead of an anemic 2 percent.” (Long-time readers may recall I mocked him repeatedly for his misguided projections.)

Three years later, Pawlenty’s goal seems to have particular salience this morning: the new GDP report points to 5% growth in the third quarter. Indeed, President Obama and his team are probably looking back at the 2012 race with glee right about now:

* The Romney Standard: Mitt Romney said during the 2012 campaign that if Americans elect him, he’d get the unemployment rate down to 6% by 2016. Obama won anyway and the unemployment rate dropped below 6% two years faster.

* The Gingrich Standard: Newt Gingrich said during the 2012 campaign that if Americans re-elected the president, gas prices would reach $10 per gallon, while Gingrich would push gas down to $2.50 a gallon. As of this morning, the national average at the pump is a little under $2.38.

* The Pawlenty Standard: Tim Pawlenty said trillions of dollars in tax breaks would boost economic growth to 5% GDP. Obama actually raised taxes on the wealthy and GDP growth reached 5% anyway.

Of course, in fairness, some qualifiers are in order. For example, gas prices have dropped sharply for a variety of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with the Obama administration’s policies, so crediting the president is a real stretch. On GDP growth, Pawlenty may have been referring to 5% on an annual scale, though his promises at the time were a little vague and it was hard to tell exactly what he was trying to say.

And on unemployment, the U.S. jobless rate would have dropped below 6% much faster had congressional Republicans not killed the American Jobs Act.

But even putting these relevant details aside, the trouble for Republican rhetoricians is that by the party’s own standards, Obama is succeeding beautifully. They established the GOP benchmarks and now the Democratic president is the one meeting, and in some cases exceeding, the Republicans’ goals.
Meeting the Tim Pawlenty standard | MSNBC
Lol. All exceeded by Obama.

Lets just skip the partisan crap and understand we are being dealt our hand by both parties and the plutocracy.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Actually since illegal immigrants in CA can be covered by the state that takes out a large portion of the illegal immigrant population. Nice try though. The young and healthy still need it they just don't realize it. The wealthiest people would be idiots to not carry some kind of insurance so I laugh at that. If you get cancer without health insurance it can easily eat up millions of dollars very quickly. If you think that the rich don't carry insurance then please pass whatever shit you are smoking.

Cuba doesn't have that bad of healthcare (not great but not horrific) and Venezuela is shit. How about the 50 or so countries that are doing it right? You still haven't answered about them.

Most people would agree that a single payer system needs to be done right and over a large enough population. Vermont has a small population, not the best idea to do a government option over a small population.

Just because small businesses would laugh doesn't mean that they are right. One of the biggest difficulties in scaling up a business is controlling employee costs and knowing what it will cost to provide health insurance is important. Sure Joe down the corner who owns a pool cleaning business doesn't care as he has two pool cleaners. But Mary down the way who is trying to run a tech start-up and hopes to make it big, better damn care or she is fucking stupid. The pool guy while he employees people is paying minimum wage and not paying benefits. Mary on the other hand is paying for benefits for her employees and probably paying massive amounts for them or she can't get the best employees because she doesn't offer benefits.

California: That place can do whatever the hell it wants. Illegal immigrants aren't all in CA. Nice try. And by the rest of that paragraph, you continue to spew the liberal arrogance of "they just don't know better" and "I know what's better for them than they do." Get a grip.

Cuba doesn't have bad health care?! What are you smoking? And why can't you admit WHY their system sucks?

Most people would agree to a single payer system? What'd you do, take another hit? lol. This argument is supported by what? Anything? You clearly didn't read the Forbes article. Had nothing to do with population lol.

Businesses: Polls show you are not only wrong, but small and mid size business owners don't give a damn what you think or your "advice" in regards to health care for their employees.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Actually since illegal immigrants in CA can be covered by the state that takes out a large portion of the illegal immigrant population. Nice try though. The young and healthy still need it they just don't realize it. The wealthiest people would be idiots to not carry some kind of insurance so I laugh at that. If you get cancer without health insurance it can easily eat up millions of dollars very quickly. If you think that the rich don't carry insurance then please pass whatever shit you are smoking.

Cuba doesn't have that bad of healthcare (not great but not horrific) and Venezuela is shit. How about the 50 or so countries that are doing it right? You still haven't answered about them.

Most people would agree that a single payer system needs to be done right and over a large enough population. Vermont has a small population, not the best idea to do a government option over a small population.

Just because small businesses would laugh doesn't mean that they are right. One of the biggest difficulties in scaling up a business is controlling employee costs and knowing what it will cost to provide health insurance is important. Sure Joe down the corner who owns a pool cleaning business doesn't care as he has two pool cleaners. But Mary down the way who is trying to run a tech start-up and hopes to make it big, better damn care or she is fucking stupid. The pool guy while he employees people is paying minimum wage and not paying benefits. Mary on the other hand is paying for benefits for her employees and probably paying massive amounts for them or she can't get the best employees because she doesn't offer benefits.

Two questions you still refuse or can't answer:

1) Take out the young, the wealthy, and the illegal immigrants and how many million American citizens really don't have health insurance? What's the number you come up with? Aside from that, ACA is in full swing and we still don't have every single American covered. Why? Wasn't this the end all be all?

2) Why do the health care systems of Cuba and Venezuela suck?
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
The real question is Polish Leppy, what would you do to fix our healthcare system? You seem to think that you are great at critiquing the ACA but you have given actually zero info on what you would do to fix it. To add to that, just repealing ACA doesn't fix it. Our healthcare system has been broken for a long time.

I don't proclaim to be smart enough to design the perfect health care system. I am smart enough to call bullshit where I see it, and that's what the ACA is. The whole thing was a lie from the start and I've supported that argument with verifiable data.

If someone had a gun to my head and I had to, I'd start here:

1) Let insurance plans run across state lines

2) Allow young people to remain on their parents plans later if the parents agree. Who's losing there? No one.

3) Health savings account from the day you are born (hat tip Ben Carson)

4) Get government out of the business

5) Come down hard on medical fraud

6) Design comprehensive plan (liberals love that phrase) for young kids with cancer and other life-threatening illnesses. The 58 year old smoker of 30 years with lung cancer? Sorry pal, you knew what you signed up for with that. The 5 year old with a brain tumor? Yeah we gotta do something here.

ACA sucks, it was a lie from Day 1, and it has a 35% approval rating in the US. Just accept it.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
California: That place can do whatever the hell it wants. Illegal immigrants aren't all in CA. Nice try. And by the rest of that paragraph, you continue to spew the liberal arrogance of "they just don't know better" and "I know what's better for them than they do." Get a grip.

Cuba doesn't have bad health care?! What are you smoking? And why can't you admit WHY their system sucks?

Most people would agree to a single payer system? What'd you do, take another hit? lol. This argument is supported by what? Anything? You clearly didn't read the Forbes article. Had nothing to do with population lol.

Businesses: Polls show you are not only wrong, but small and mid size business owners don't give a damn what you think or your "advice" in regards to health care for their employees.

California has a significant portion of our illegal immigrants. Nice try.

Cuba does not have a good healthcare system but it is also not a horrible system. Venezuela has a horrible system.

Most people would say that to do it correctly it needs to be over a large number of people (not that most people would like a single payer system, that is because they are too caught up in politics not because it wouldn't be good for them). A small sample size (in comparison to the US) is the not the way to test if something works out. The fact that most of the European countries have it and it works is a much larger sample size and proves that it works.

Business people that only care about the bottom line (or who are in businesses where you don't compete for an educated workforce such as McDonald's franchises or a pool cleaning company) don't care about healthcare for their employees. Just because they don't care about healthcare doesn't mean they shouldn't care about healthcare.

We care more about fighting crazy ass shit all over the world instead of taking care of our own populace. Lets provide healthcare to our citizens and forget about fighting wars all over the fucking world. It is a much better use for our money.
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
1,920

marv81s

v v v KamaraPolice's GF
Messages
1,463
Reaction score
66
Marv please correct me if I'm wrong but my translation was: this president and his policies have been a disaster for our country, unless you wanted to see America undergo fundamental transformation, in which case it was a success.

you are correct in your translation
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
I don't proclaim to be smart enough to design the perfect health care system. I am smart enough to call bullshit where I see it, and that's what the ACA is. The whole thing was a lie from the start and I've supported that argument with verifiable data.

If someone had a gun to my head and I had to, I'd start here:

1) Let insurance plans run across state lines

States are part of the problem here, don't just blame the federal government, also that doesn't address the real problem of insurance being tied to your job and what happens if you change jobs.
2) Allow young people to remain on their parents plans later if the parents agree. Who's losing there? No one.
ACA does this
3) Health savings account from the day you are born (hat tip Ben Carson)
Implementation is the key, who pays for it? If it is the parents, what happens with poor familes?
4) Get government out of the business
Seriously? If businesses would step up and pay for their employees healthcare or give them living wages this wouldn't be a problem. Instead fast food and places like Wal-Mart get subsidized by the federal government because they pay such shit wages that they have to rely on the federal government to get succeed. Businesses are getting subsidized by the government. Also history proves that businesses are not trustworthy. Get a book and read about it.
5) Come down hard on medical fraud
Everyone says that. You can't get rid of all fraud.
6) Design comprehensive plan (liberals love that phrase) for young kids with cancer and other life-threatening illnesses. The 58 year old smoker of 30 years with lung cancer? Sorry pal, you knew what you signed up for with that. The 5 year old with a brain tumor? Yeah we gotta do something here.
ACA does cover that child, or previous programs like medicaid do. Also you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our healthcare system works. That poor 58 year old smoker has to be treated by the hospital, and can't pay for it so you end up paying for it anyways just through the hospital charging higher fees for their services. It isn't like that cost disappears.
ACA sucks, it was a lie from Day 1, and it has a 35% approval rating in the US. Just accept it.
I don't care about approval ratings. I care about if we have a system that works, only politicians care about approval ratings. I don't love the ACA, as I would much prefer a single payer system. Our old system is broke and all of the fixes that have been floated out there by the right are more like band-aids then fixes. There is a reason that most (if not every) industrialized country out there has a single payer system or something close to it.

See the bold.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
California has a significant portion of our illegal immigrants. Nice try.

Cuba does not have a good healthcare system but it is also not a horrible system. Venezuela has a horrible system.

Most people would say that to do it correctly it needs to be over a large number of people (not that most people would like a single payer system, that is because they are too caught up in politics not because it wouldn't be good for them). A small sample size (in comparison to the US) is the not the way to test if something works out. The fact that most of the European countries have it and it works is a much larger sample size and proves that it works.

Business people that only care about the bottom line (or who are in businesses where you don't compete for an educated workforce such as McDonald's franchises or a pool cleaning company) don't care about healthcare for their employees. Just because they don't care about healthcare doesn't mean they shouldn't care about healthcare.

We care more about fighting crazy ass shit all over the world instead of taking care of our own populace. Lets provide healthcare to our citizens and forget about fighting wars all over the fucking world. It is a much better use for our money.

Illegals: Sure CA has a number. What exactly is it? You don't know.

Cuba and Venezeula: forget the population. Why do those systems suck?

Europe: most of those countries have a smaller population, live healthier lives, and aren't subsidizing 12-15 million illegal immigrants. If you say comparing the US to Cuba is off the table, then so is Europe.

Your last paragraph makes you sound like a starry eyed college kid. Good work haha
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
California has a significant portion of our illegal immigrants. Nice try.

Cuba does not have a good healthcare system but it is also not a horrible system. Venezuela has a horrible system.

Most people would say that to do it correctly it needs to be over a large number of people (not that most people would like a single payer system, that is because they are too caught up in politics not because it wouldn't be good for them). A small sample size (in comparison to the US) is the not the way to test if something works out. The fact that most of the European countries have it and it works is a much larger sample size and proves that it works.

Business people that only care about the bottom line (or who are in businesses where you don't compete for an educated workforce such as McDonald's franchises or a pool cleaning company) don't care about healthcare for their employees. Just because they don't care about healthcare doesn't mean they shouldn't care about healthcare.

We care more about fighting crazy ass shit all over the world instead of taking care of our own populace. Lets provide healthcare to our citizens and forget about fighting wars all over the fucking world. It is a much better use for our money.

If you're mad about us fighting crazy ass shit all over the world, ask the Nobel prize winning president why he continues to send more troops into Afghanistan. We DO provide health care to our citizens, and millions more who aren't citizens. No one is turned away at hospitals. No one is denied medical care. The fact that you consider a country that doesn't have single payer = people being denied health care shows your emotion driven argument. Moreover, let me know the day you realize the government can't control the cost of anything.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
This president has been a disaster in every sense of the world, except for those that were not fans of America and wanted to see if fundamentally transformed also

Marv please correct me if I'm wrong but my translation was: this president and his policies have been a disaster for our country, unless you wanted to see America undergo fundamental transformation, in which case it was a success.

What policies are you two talking about? Seems to me like he's had a presidency where he couldn't implement his agenda due to Congress anyway. And specifically, where is the disaster?

No one can honestly say that Obamacare is responsible for this:

MaryMeeker-graph-e1329513274401.png


So what is left? Ending Don't Ask Don't Tell?

I can't imagine a Republican president doing much differently when it comes to foreign policy. McCain and Romney, both of whom got my vote, ran as hawks (much to my chagrin) so it's not like they wouldn't have let the Pentagon do their thing in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. I mean isn't McCain one of the more vocal supporters of Obama's actions when it comes to drones and such? So where is the "fundamental transformation" you both are talking about?
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
What policies are you two talking about? Seems to me like he's had a presidency where he couldn't implement his agenda due to Congress anyway. And specifically, where is the disaster?

No one can honestly say that Obamacare is responsible for this:

MaryMeeker-graph-e1329513274401.png


So what is left? Ending Don't Ask Don't Tell?

I can't imagine a Republican president doing much differently when it comes to foreign policy. McCain and Romney, both of whom got my vote, ran as hawks (much to my chagrin) so it's not like they wouldn't have let the Pentagon do their thing in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. I mean isn't McCain one of the more vocal supporters of Obama's actions when it comes to drones and such? So where is the "fundamental transformation" you both are talking about?

McCain and Romney were both a joke, and neither of us has a crystal ball telling us what they would or wouldn't have done. Off the top of my head with fundamental transformation:

1) Stimulus: did not stimulate. Made things worse. Did not learn from Reagan or FDR.

2) ACA: See above. It's a mess, and going to get worse in years to come long after BO is out of office. Progressives tend to do that (medicare, medicaid, ACA)

3) Immigration: Nuff said.

4) Going it alone: re-wrote ACA unconstitutionally, unauthorized military action overseas, immigration enforcement, etc.

5) NSA surveillance on citizens

6) Arab spring

Possibly more damaging than all that is his attitude and how divisive he's been, and it shows in polls regarding Americans' attitude towards our future as a nation.

His comments on the Trayvon Martin situation, the "you didn't build that" line, cutting military benefits, his hypocrisy on drones, refuses to use the phrase "Islamic terrorism" or "Muslim terrorist."
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
The Federalist in me is 100% fine with Vermont doing whatever it wants to do with its health care system, so long as it doesn't involve me. Those of us with half a brain and a calculator should learn the lessons of why this experiment failed.

Liberal dream of single-payer health care dies in Vermont | New York Post

"Vermonters were stunned to discover just how much their new “free” health care was going to cost. Paying for Green Mountain Care would have required a 160% increase in state taxes by 2019, as much as $2.9 billion annually. The state’s top income tax rate would have been raised from 8.95% to an astounding 18%. For high earners that would mean a combined federal-state income tax burden of 56%. Even lower-income Vermonters would have seen a substantial tax hike.

As if that wasn’t enough, businesses would have been hit with an 11.5% state payroll tax. That would be on top of a federal payroll tax of 15.3% to 16.2%, as well as federal and state corporate income taxes. That’s not exactly going to lead to an employment boom."


^^^ Apparently this is the part where PKT thinks businesses should welcome and be thankful for single payer.
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
1,920
Interesting conservative take on Vermont.

Her basic argument is that...

The problem, as I wrote previously, is that America doesn't have a health-care cost-growth problem; we had a health-care cost-growth problem.

In other words, the skyrocketing costs of healthcare during the Reagan era basically priced the US out of single-payer and now it's too late to change to it because it would either be too disruptive to the health-care industry or too expensive. It's an interesting argument, and there's certainly some truth to it. However, it doesn't really say much about what we should do about healthcare. Maybe she's prObamacare?

Personally, I think she downplays this aspect of it too much in her article:

Oh, Vermont has some special problems -- a small state loses some of the ability to rationalize the system that the federal government would have because it has to deal with border issues, such as commuters and what to do about a Vermont citizen who has to get treatment in a New Hampshire hospital. But that doesn't seem to have been the biggest problem Vermont faced.

Might be more convincing if she had actual arguments as opposed to feelings. A lot of the problems with a state by state move to singlepayer (doctors/patients moving out of state) are mitigated or can't happen if the US in general moves to single-payer.
 
Last edited:

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
If you're mad about us fighting crazy ass shit all over the world, ask the Nobel prize winning president why he continues to send more troops into Afghanistan. We DO provide health care to our citizens, and millions more who aren't citizens. No one is turned away at hospitals. No one is denied medical care. The fact that you consider a country that doesn't have single payer = people being denied health care shows your emotion driven argument. Moreover, let me know the day you realize the government can't control the cost of anything.

You do realize that the number 1 reason for bankruptcies before the 2008 was healthcare bills, right? You do also realize that the majority of people filing for bankruptcy because of medical bills had some form of insurance?

Also you do realize that they are only not turned away from Emergency rooms which causes the cost of healthcare to skyrocket. People end up going to the EM for things that aren't emergencies, which costs us significantly more money. Also people don't go and get regular check-ups that could catch things early (like diabetes, heart disease, etc) that are much cheaper to treat when they are caught early. All of these things drive up the cost of healthcare which affects how much everyone else pays for their insurance/healthcare. Again a single payer system would lower the cost of healthcare by reducing emergency room visits, and by providing more preventative care.


If you don't think that a government who has a single payer system isn't controlling (not setting but controlling) the cost of healthcare then you are crazy. The only provider of something controls the market. Look at the cost for medicine in Canada vs the cost for it here, shockingly it is significantly cheaper in Canada. If you don't think that a single payer system, effectively controls the price of healthcare, then well you are living in a fantasy world.

Single payer systems also help control the cost of healthcare by reducing overhead costs and by the fact that they don't need to make a profit. Think about it, about 10-15% of your insurance premium goes to overhead costs, while Medicare is about half that amount (or less, especially traditional Medicare).

Here is an interesting article on what version of a single payer system (though not quite a true single payer system) would do. Federal Spending increases, Business spending increases, State spending on healthcare drops, and healthcare costs for individuals/households drops drastically.
Research Desk: How much would single-payer cost? - The Washington Post
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
McCain and Romney were both a joke,

This always makes me laugh, conservatives and their ability to disown their own candidates. When was the last time the GOP nominated a decent candidate? Nixon?

and neither of us has a crystal ball telling us what they would or wouldn't have done.

Well they are alive and give their opinions. We also have their election stances and can compare them.

Off the top of my head with fundamental transformation:

1) Stimulus: did not stimulate. Made things worse. Did not learn from Reagan or FDR.

2) ACA: See above. It's a mess, and going to get worse in years to come long after BO is out of office. Progressives tend to do that (medicare, medicaid, ACA)

3) Immigration: Nuff said.

4) Going it alone: re-wrote ACA unconstitutionally, unauthorized military action overseas, immigration enforcement, etc.

5) NSA surveillance on citizens

6) Arab spring

I don't see a disaster. Still waiting for the promised disaster.

The stimulus failed to keep unemployment below 8%, but it didn't "make things worse." My no means a national catastrophe or anything close to a disaster. It patched some holes in state budgets for a bit. Meh.

Obamacare is not a disaster. When you have years and years and years of failure and the new program doesn't solve it, it's not a disaster.

You're going to need to elaborate on immigration and the rest. I don't see the disaster or the "fundamental transformation." Things I oppose? Definitely. Disaster? Wut.

Possibly more damaging than all that is his attitude and how divisive he's been, and it shows in polls regarding Americans' attitude towards our future as a nation.

You want to talk about how divisive Obama has been when there are TV networks and radio stations pumping 24/7 opposition to everything he does? When is the last time Rush Limbaugh or Fox News said something remotely positive about any policy Obama favored? "He's 100% wrong all the time" sums up their narrative.

His comments on the Trayvon Martin situation, the "you didn't build that" line, cutting military benefits, his hypocrisy on drones, refuses to use the phrase "Islamic terrorism" or "Muslim terrorist."

Yawn.
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
1,920
What may be a yawn to you, is important to people like myself simply because those are areas of which my skill set is required and he has failed miserably. I know this from first hand experience.

No way you can look at the American position in the world and say that we are clearly worse off than we were 8 years ago. You can certainly argue that the president has missed some opportunities, but I think on balance he's done an impressive job navigating a foreign policy that's been neither too bellicose nor too soft through one of the most complicated environments an American president has ever had to face.

Like Buster, I agree that some of his policies haven't been ideal, but I really really do not see where he's been an unmitigated disaster, nor do I see any possible rational basis for that claim.
 

Grahambo

Varsity Club Member
Messages
4,259
Reaction score
2,606
No way you can look at the American position in the world and say that we are clearly worse off than we were 8 years ago. You can certainly argue that the president has missed some opportunities, but I think on balance he's done an impressive job navigating a foreign policy that's been neither too bellicose nor too soft through one of the most complicated environments an American president has ever had to face.

Like Buster, I agree that some of his policies haven't been ideal, but I really really do not see where he's been an unmitigated disaster, nor do I see any possible rational basis for that claim.

Apparently, me trying to respond is becoming a technical nightmare. lol

I simply disagree. Again, first hand experience. I don't need newspaper articles/networks, reporters, etc to tell me what I know with the experience I have acquired over the last 10 years. Just a simple agree to disagree.
 

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
You do realize that the number 1 reason for bankruptcies before the 2008 was healthcare bills, right? You do also realize that the majority of people filing for bankruptcy because of medical bills had some form of insurance?

Also you do realize that they are only not turned away from Emergency rooms which causes the cost of healthcare to skyrocket. People end up going to the EM for things that aren't emergencies, which costs us significantly more money. Also people don't go and get regular check-ups that could catch things early (like diabetes, heart disease, etc) that are much cheaper to treat when they are caught early. All of these things drive up the cost of healthcare which affects how much everyone else pays for their insurance/healthcare. Again a single payer system would lower the cost of healthcare by reducing emergency room visits, and by providing more preventative care.


If you don't think that a government who has a single payer system isn't controlling (not setting but controlling) the cost of healthcare then you are crazy. The only provider of something controls the market. Look at the cost for medicine in Canada vs the cost for it here, shockingly it is significantly cheaper in Canada. If you don't think that a single payer system, effectively controls the price of healthcare, then well you are living in a fantasy world.

Single payer systems also help control the cost of healthcare by reducing overhead costs and by the fact that they don't need to make a profit. Think about it, about 10-15% of your insurance premium goes to overhead costs, while Medicare is about half that amount (or less, especially traditional Medicare).

Here is an interesting article on what version of a single payer system (though not quite a true single payer system) would do. Federal Spending increases, Business spending increases, State spending on healthcare drops, and healthcare costs for individuals/households drops drastically.
Research Desk: How much would single-payer cost? - The Washington Post

Sure, a single payer system may help on overall costs. What's it do for quality of health care though? Ask anybody using the VA (myself included) if they are happy with the quality of their care they receive.

Long story short, Obamacare moved me into the VA system. I've been waiting 4 1/2 months for an appointment, with a doctor I had no part in selecting, for a date and time I have no say in, whose office will not return any of my phone calls. And in the meantime, I am encouraged , by the VA, to utilize the emergency room for healthcare needs if I don't want to wait. This also doesn't take into account the HOURS I've spent on hold and on the phone with them in simply trying to get an appointment, nor the general frustration and loathing .

And my story is not even close to an anecdotal one. This is everyday life, business as usual, at the single payer system that is the VA.

A single payer system will absolutely have a negative impact on the quality of care people receive.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
3,263
You do realize that the number 1 reason for bankruptcies before the 2008 was healthcare bills, right?

This isn't accurate. I know you're relying on studies that have been published but they are extremely misleading. I've seen many and they are all flawed, IMO.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
What may be a yawn to you, is important to people like myself simply because those are areas of which my skill set is required and he has failed miserably. I know this from first hand experience.

Timeout.

I think Obama sucks. He has not been a good President. I can list my disagreements with him until I'm blue in the face. He has failed on a number of fronts.

That said, the last eight years have not been a disaster personally tailored by Obama. We have useless rhetoric from the Right that insinuates that the sky is falling, unemployment is 9000%, inflation is berserk, illegal Mexicans are raping and pillaging everything west of the Mississippi whilst possibly teaming up with Zombie Bin Laden to unleash mayhem on our children, that the White House administration is having a bukakke session on our Constitution, and that Obama loathes policemen because he's a Muslim. /hyperbole

The criticisms of Obama are so harsh that I actually have to defend the guy. I think it's especially absurd considering the guy he replaced sent thousands of Americans to their deaths for a pointless war, severely damaged American opinion around the world, increased the deficit by trillions so he could win elections, and was totally blind to the housing bubble that harmed tens of millions of Americans. I mean, you don't have to look that far back to find a President worse than Obama.

Can't we all shrug our shoulders and come to the realization that there isn't a Republican or Democrat who can really solve any major issues in this country because it has to go through a Congress that is so overwhelming controlled by their corporate daddies that the idea of a bill getting through there without corporate approval is just silly. That's the problem with this country. It's not the President.
 
Last edited:

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
This isn't accurate. I know you're relying on studies that have been published but they are extremely misleading. I've seen many and they are all flawed, IMO.

That is your opinion. Can you post anything showing that not to be the case as all of the studies out there say it?
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Sure, a single payer system may help on overall costs. What's it do for quality of health care though? Ask anybody using the VA (myself included) if they are happy with the quality of their care they receive.

Long story short, Obamacare moved me into the VA system. I've been waiting 4 1/2 months for an appointment, with a doctor I had no part in selecting, for a date and time I have no say in, whose office will not return any of my phone calls. And in the meantime, I am encouraged , by the VA, to utilize the emergency room for healthcare needs if I don't want to wait. This also doesn't take into account the HOURS I've spent on hold and on the phone with them in simply trying to get an appointment, nor the general frustration and loathing .

And my story is not even close to an anecdotal one. This is everyday life, business as usual, at the single payer system that is the VA.

A single payer system will absolutely have a negative impact on the quality of care people receive
.

No one is going to argue that the VA provides great healthcare (or even average healthcare), but you are wrong to use the VA as why healthcare quality will fall if we do a single payer system. The VA is an extremely small set of doctors, thus limiting the amount of care that can be given. A single payer system on the other hand would encompass all of the doctors and hospitals in the nation (well almost all of the doctors some would choose to see only the rich who pay out of pocket though there is already a group of doctors doing this), so you are incorrect to assume that a single payer system would be similar in quality to the VA system. They are two completely different animals. One is a very small closed system, while the other would be a huge open system with 99% of doctors and hospitals being a part of it.

Edit: Insurance companies aren't making your quality of care better, it is the access to doctors that makes it better or worse. Changing who is paying for it won't change the quality of care as long as the doctors available doesn't change.
 
Last edited:

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,947
Reaction score
11,225
No one is going to argue that the VA provides great healthcare (or even average healthcare), but you are wrong to use the VA as why healthcare quality will fall if we do a single payer system. The VA is an extremely small set of doctors, thus limiting the amount of care that can be given. A single payer system on the other hand would encompass all of the doctors and hospitals in the nation (well almost all of the doctors some would choose to see only the rich who pay out of pocket though there is already a group of doctors doing this), so you are incorrect to assume that a single payer system would be similar in quality to the VA system. They are two completely different animals. One is a very small closed system, while the other would be a huge open system with 99% of doctors and hospitals being a part of it.

Edit: Insurance companies aren't making your quality of care better, it is the access to doctors that makes it better or worse. Changing who is paying for it won't change the quality of care as long as the doctors available doesn't change.

VA patient to doctor ratio in an extremely bad case... 1-315
National citizen (potential patient) to doctor ratio... 1-400


Staff at embattled Phoenix VA pocketed bonuses, hefty salaries | Fox News

Physicians (per 1,000 people) | Data | Table
 
Top