America Health-care is already incredibly inefficient to near unworkable soon, and as you stated America spends a ridiculous amount of money on it.
So evidently it is the management and implementation that is important, the Greatest Ideal will be rejected if it is so poorly planned and poorly run it impacts people negatively.
Nor is is apparent that we need an absolute singular form of universal health-care, there are many middle-ground forms that seem even more workable with more benefits.
This is why the sides disagree. You say the Republicans plan will kill people. That's only true if you believe the Federal government should be in charge of our healthcare. I don't. If it isn't the government's responsibility to begin with, they're not 'killing' anybody by getting rid of it. I'm sorry but I just don't agree with your logic.
Whose responsibility is it then?
The employers? Yeah, that only works for those people who can get the jobs that offer benefits. That excludes not just part-time workers, but also the disabled, the elderly who have chosen to retire, and children too young to work.
State government? Sure, but then you run into the problem where your quality of healthcare is dependant on where you live. Healthcare in Washington State is very different from Arizona. Typically, care is better in blue states than in red states (because blue states haven't cut medicaid and medicare to high heaven). Without equal access to basic health all across the states, we effectively deny freedoms and the pursuit of happiness from our own citizens. Because of their zip code.
So what's left? What's the point of even having a federal government if it doesn't take care of its most vulnerable citizenry? Maybe we should just go back to the days when people helped themselves. "If you become terminally ill through no fault of your own and don't have the money to care for yourself, well, that's too bad I guess. It's not the government's responsibility to help you. I guess you'll just have to tough it out."
It's no ones responsibility but one's own, Health-care is a privilege and not a right, A Right as originally envisioned has nothing to do with services, Unfortunately people use the word 'Right' to mean 'something i just want' nowadays Like Bernie.
You cannot 'deny freedoms and the pursuit of happiness' by absence, Denying freedom requires an Act.
The original purpose of the Federal Government was to protect Rights, and the original justification for its activities wherever it imposes something, was a practical one to prevent people from taking the rights from another (Law and Military).
Regardless, even under a socialist system Universal Health-care is not singularly beneficial to everyone, taxing people a sky-high amount to 'cover everyone' means that many people can't afford food, housing or education for themselves or their children.
Now some might argue they are willing to pay that price, and that is fine, but the moral arguments tend to be one-sided and not acknowledge the other side of the coin.
America Health-care is already incredibly inefficient to near unworkable soon, and as you stated America spends a ridiculous amount of money on it.
So evidently it is the management and implementation that is important, the Greatest Ideal will be rejected if it is so poorly planned and poorly run it impacts people negatively.
Nor is is apparent that we need an absolute singular form of universal health-care, there are many middle-ground forms that seem even more workable with more benefits.
Yes it is inefficient. Compared to countries with government healthcare we have middlemen in the form of insurance companies. Our for profit drug companies and healthcare CEOs are making a fortune and people are dying in the streets.
"These things are not equal." This is kind of my point. It doesn't matter what the issue is, both sides will find ways to dismiss their own missteps while doggedly pursuing the other groups.
This is false equivalence that both sides are the same. Think about what's being said.
People can leap to the conclusion that a nickel and a hundred dollar bill are both money, they are both money, but they are not equal. If one person has a cold and one person has cancer, you can dismiss them both as being sick but there's a difference.
Well in terms of money wasted, the previous Administration doubled the debt to 20 trillion so comparison argument's won't favor the Democrat party all that much.
It's no ones responsibility but one's own, Health-care is a privilege and not a right, A Right as originally envisioned has nothing to do with services, Unfortunately people use the word 'Right' to mean 'something i just want' nowadays Like Bernie.
You cannot 'deny freedoms and the pursuit of happiness' by absence, Denying freedom requires an Act.
The original purpose of the Federal Government was to protect Rights, and the original justification for its activities wherever it imposes something, was a practical one to prevent people from taking the rights from another (Law and Military).
Regardless, even under a socialist system Universal Health-care is not singularly beneficial to everyone, taxing people a sky-high amount to 'cover everyone' means that many people can't afford food, housing or education for themselves or their children.
Now some might argue they are willing to pay that price, and that is fine, but the moral arguments tend to be one-sided and not acknowledge the other side of the coin.
I would love to hear from some of our European posters here backing up this claim that they cant afford food or housing because of the tax rates due to universal health care. I doubt it will happen. And a hell of a lot of people here and elsewhere feel like the idea that healthcare is a privilege not just wrong, but barbaric. And most of he rest of the Western world agrees.
I would love to hear from some of our European posters here backing up this claim that they cant afford food or housing because of the tax rates due to universal health care. I doubt it will happen.
It is hard to envision there are poor and financially struggling people in Europe?
And a hell of a lot of people here and elsewhere feel like the idea that healthcare is a privilege not just wrong, but barbaric. And most of he rest of the Western world agrees.
Universal health care is a privilege it isn't a right.
It is a privilege because some other entity is providing it for you and subsidizing it.
This is about clear definitions, not some vote on what people want lol.
"These things are not equal." This is kind of my point. It doesn't matter what the issue is, both sides will find ways to dismiss their own missteps while doggedly pursuing the other groups.
This is false equivalence that both sides are the same. Think about what's being said.
People can leap to the conclusion that a nickel and a hundred dollar bill are both money, they are both money, but they are not equal. If one person has a cold and one person has cancer, you can dismiss them both as being sick but there's a difference.
I find it interesting that people calling "false equivalence" only ever seem to see it in favor of their own party.
I would love to hear from some of our European posters here backing up this claim that they cant afford food or housing because of the tax rates due to universal health care. I doubt it will happen.
It is hard to envision there are poor and financially struggling people in Europe?
And a hell of a lot of people here and elsewhere feel like the idea that healthcare is a privilege not just wrong, but barbaric. And most of he rest of the Western world agrees.
Universal health care is a privilege it isn't a right.
It is a privilege because some other entity is providing it for you and subsidizing it.
This is about clear definitions, not some vote on what people want lol.
The statement was that people in Europe were struggling to make those ends meet specifically BECAUSE of the way health care is implemented. Even parties on the right-wing in Europe wouldn't dare threaten the national health systems of those nations.
The statement was that people in Europe were struggling to make those ends meet specifically BECAUSE of the way health care is implemented. Even parties on the right-wing in Europe wouldn't dare threaten the national health systems of those nations.
There are many people struggling to make ends meet because of the taxation imposed by any universal-health care system anywhere, money taken away from a struggling family financially never helps them.
You may envision that Europe is altogether incredibly prosperous such that an imposition matters little, which isn't really true, but regardless.
If one of the requirements for a viable Government subsidized health care system is that people in society are largely well-off economically that they can absorb that tax, then The viability of a system relies more on the economic health of a society then it being Government run.
Well in terms of money wasted, the previous Administration doubled the debt to 20 trillion so comparison argument's won't favor the Democrat party all that much.
Who controlled the legislative branch during Obama's years? And he inherited a huge mess from Bush. When all things are considered, Obama's debt contribution was $983 billion between 2009 and 2017. 2008's budget was set by Bush.
It's a little misleading to hold Obama (or any other president) accountable for the deficit incurred during his first year of office. That's because the previous administration already set the federal budget for that fiscal year.
Before Obama took office, President Bush's last budget (FY 2009) created a deficit of $1.16 trillion. That fiscal year began on October 1, 2008, and continued until September 30, 2009. That means most of that deficit occurred after Obama took office in January. It's not accurate to attribute it to him.
FY 2009 - Even though the budget had been approved, Congress added emergency funding to stop the Great Recession. It added the first year's worth of spending from Obama's Economic Stimulus Act to the FY 2009 budget. That $253 billion accrues to Obama. FY 2010 - Obama's first budget created a $1.294 trillion deficit. FY 2011 - This budget contributed $1.3 trillion to the debt. FY 2012 - The deficit was $1.087 trillion. FY 2013 - This was the first Obama budget where the deficit, $679 billion, was less than $1 trillion. Thank sequestration, which forced a 10 percent cut in spending. FY 2014 - The deficit was $485 billion. FY 2015 - The deficit fell further, to $438 billion. FY 2016 - The deficit is expected to be $600 billion FY 2017 (Current Budget) - The deficit is projected to be $441 billion. When the deficits from all these budgets are added together, President Obama increased the debt by $6.576 trillion.
Is it fair to blame any president for events over which he had no control? During Obama's terms, there was less federal income than usual. That is because the recession and the Bush tax cuts reduced tax receipts. At the same time, the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and other mandatory programs continued to increase.
The War on Terror, although technically over, was still being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The fairest method is to measure the debt incurred by Obama's specific policies. The Congressional Budget Office does this for every program. The CBO found that the largest contributor to the debt was the Obama tax cuts, which were an extension of the Bush tax cuts. They added $858 billion to the debt in 2011 and 2012.
The next largest was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It added $787 billion between 2009 and 2012. It cut taxes, extended unemployment benefits, and funded job-creating public works projects.
Like the Obama tax cuts, the ARRA was an attempt to stimulate the economy after the 2008 financial crisis
Obama increased military spending to an average of $800 billion a year. In fact, his security budget request of $895 billion in FY 2011 set a new record. In FY 2013, he requested $851 billion. That happened even though he withdrew troops from Iraq in 2012 and eliminated the threat from Osama bin Laden in 2011. Obama spent $857 billion in contingency funds during his administration. That was more than the $850 billion Bush devoted to the War on Terror.
What about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? It didn't add anything to the debt in Obama's first term. That's because most of its costs began in 2014. That's when it set up health insurance exchanges and extended coverage to more low-income people. In fact, tax increases offset costs to the tune of $104 billion between 2010 and 2019.
Congress and Obama also negotiated the sequestration budget cuts. They cut the deficit by a small percent. When all these are added up, Obama's debt contribution was $983 billion between 2009 and 2017. (Source: Ezra Klein, "Doing the Math on Obama's Deficits," The Wall Street Journal, January 31, 2014.)
The debt and deficits NEVER mattered under Reagan and W. Only under Clinton and Obama. For the record, I don't think they matter at all. Relative to our GDP, and given how low interest rates are on public debt, we should be borrowing MORE money. But at least Democrats are consistent about not thinking it matters. Republicans turn on a dime depending on who is in office.
Obama was commander-in-chief of the country for 8 years, so there is little excuse, particularly since the Democrats did control both the House and the Senate for 2 years of his Presidency.
The debt and deficits NEVER mattered under Reagan and W. Only under Clinton and Obama. For the record, I don't think they matter at all. Relative to our GDP, and given how low interest rates are on public debt, we should be borrowing MORE money. But at least Democrats are consistent about not thinking it matters. Republicans turn on a dime depending on who is in office.
Well if the debt is not a worry, and borrowing money is fine.
I don't really see why there is criticism of expenses for Trumps personal travel since...Government can just borrow money then.
I don't really see why there is criticism of expenses for Trumps personal travel since...Government can just borrow money then.
He wants to cut meals on wheels, education, healthcare for poor people, and then he needlessly spends around that same amount of money housing his wife in New York and taking vacations to Florida every week. You don't see a problem there?
Well if were going to be nitpicky, then i would assume that people exaggerating Trump as Hitler are also partly responsible because they may have drove up the perception of the need for higher security thus expense?
I will also throw this into the argument. Those great European countries as well as Japan and Korea have a lot more to spend on their health care because by and large the US takes care of their national defense for them. I'm not saying we should pull out and force them to build their own militaries because that would probably destabilize the world but I will say that its easy for them to sit back and bitch about us and call us backwards on health care and sound all proud of themselves but the fact is that without us they likely wouldn't be around as nation states right now and that's a fact!
Well if were going to be nitpicky, then i would assume that people exaggerating Trump as Hitler are also partly responsible because they may have drove up the perception of the need for higher security thus expense?
Don't criticize the President or you are complicit if something happens to them?? Also, the comparisons to Hitler DO NOT mean that the people making them are seeing gas chambers being set up by December. In yet another subject where I have said this multiple times, Nazism did not start with gas chambers and World War. It took nearly a decade to get to that point. Dismissing people who bring up fascist warning signs as being nuts by immediately going to the "how dare you compare him to Hitler, you are minimizing the Holocaust" or other such arguments is wholly disingenuous because it ignores 1933-1941.
Because Trump wanting better relations with Russia makes him Hitler, instead of a Cold War or escalated Military conflict.
While Hillary advocating going after Russia doesn't somehow.
Because Obama explicitly stating the intention to get rid of another sovereign states Government through military action doesn't mean much except Obama gets a Nobel Peace Prize.
Exaggerated stereotypes applied unfairly reeks of political partisanship and hardly reflects reality.
No, i prefer realistic analysis then exaggeration.
Because Trump wanting better relations with Russia makes him Hitler, instead of a Cold War or escalated Military conflict.
While Hillary advocating going after Russia doesn't somehow.
Because Obama explicitly stating the intention to get rid of another sovereign states Government through military action doesn't mean much except Obama gets a Nobel Peace Prize.
Exaggerated stereotypes applied unfairly reeks of political partisanship and hardly reflects reality.
I don't think Trump wanting better relations with Russia is even among the top 10 reasons why anyone compares Trump to Hitler. His rallies are on the top of the list, his rhetoric about immigrants and Muslims is the other, and people around him like Bannon and Gorka are another. Actually, Hitler isn't even a good comparison from that time period. It's Mussolini, right down to his mannerisms when he struts across the stage while his crowds are chanting "lock her up".
The need to better secure the border and punish employers who choose to hire illegal immigrants you know we are a generous and welcoming people in the United States. But People who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwQkZKuusD0 Obama.
The need to better secure the border and punish employers who choose to hire illegal immigrants you know we are a generous and welcoming people in the United States. But People who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwQkZKuusD0 Obama.
I think the part where he calls most of them rapists must have been edited out. And also the part that calls for building a massive wall on the entire Mexican border.
I think the part where he calls most of them rapists must have been edited out. And also the part that calls for building a massive wall on the entire Mexican border.
I consider Obama and Hillary's involvement in actual killing of thousands of innocent ethnic people to be a tad more damning.
yet i do not see even the same level of 'outrage'.
Killing innocents is wrong at least they had the balls to order the strikes themselves and live with the heat or reward of their missions rather than passing the responsibility off as draft dodging Trump does.
Killing innocents is wrong at least they had the balls to order the strikes themselves and live with the heat or reward of their missions rather than passing the responsibility off as draft dodging Trump does.
Hillary and Obama haven't faced Justice for intentionally attacking Sovereign States to oust the current Government.
Which even under International law is considered an Act of War.
Killing innocents is wrong at least they had the balls to order the strikes themselves and live with the heat or reward of their missions rather than passing the responsibility off as draft dodging Trump does.
Hillary and Obama haven't faced Justice for intentionally attacking Sovereign States to oust the current Government.
Which even under International law is considered an Act of War.
Are you talking about attacking Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein despite there being no connection to the 9/11 attacks, pretty sure that was W.
Killing innocents is wrong at least they had the balls to order the strikes themselves and live with the heat or reward of their missions rather than passing the responsibility off as draft dodging Trump does.
Hillary and Obama haven't faced Justice for intentionally attacking Sovereign States to oust the current Government.
Which even under International law is considered an Act of War.
Are you talking about attacking Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein despite there being no connection to the 9/11 attacks, pretty sure that was W.
The Obama administration favored regime change in Syria, but it did not actually wage war against the government. Obama requested permission from Congress to put boots on the ground in Syria. When they refused, he settled for a campaign of limited drone strikes, mostly against IS targets.
Comments
So evidently it is the management and implementation that is important, the Greatest Ideal will be rejected if it is so poorly planned and poorly run it impacts people negatively.
Nor is is apparent that we need an absolute singular form of universal health-care, there are many middle-ground forms that seem even more workable with more benefits.
The employers? Yeah, that only works for those people who can get the jobs that offer benefits. That excludes not just part-time workers, but also the disabled, the elderly who have chosen to retire, and children too young to work.
State government? Sure, but then you run into the problem where your quality of healthcare is dependant on where you live. Healthcare in Washington State is very different from Arizona. Typically, care is better in blue states than in red states (because blue states haven't cut medicaid and medicare to high heaven). Without equal access to basic health all across the states, we effectively deny freedoms and the pursuit of happiness from our own citizens. Because of their zip code.
So what's left? What's the point of even having a federal government if it doesn't take care of its most vulnerable citizenry? Maybe we should just go back to the days when people helped themselves. "If you become terminally ill through no fault of your own and don't have the money to care for yourself, well, that's too bad I guess. It's not the government's responsibility to help you. I guess you'll just have to tough it out."
You cannot 'deny freedoms and the pursuit of happiness' by absence, Denying freedom requires an Act.
The original purpose of the Federal Government was to protect Rights, and the original justification for its activities wherever it imposes something, was a practical one to prevent people from taking the rights from another (Law and Military).
Regardless, even under a socialist system Universal Health-care is not singularly beneficial to everyone, taxing people a sky-high amount to 'cover everyone' means that many people can't afford food, housing or education for themselves or their children.
Now some might argue they are willing to pay that price, and that is fine, but the moral arguments tend to be one-sided and not acknowledge the other side of the coin.
People can leap to the conclusion that a nickel and a hundred dollar bill are both money, they are both money, but they are not equal. If one person has a cold and one person has cancer, you can dismiss them both as being sick but there's a difference.
It is a privilege because some other entity is providing it for you and subsidizing it.
This is about clear definitions, not some vote on what people want lol.
You may envision that Europe is altogether incredibly prosperous such that an imposition matters little, which isn't really true, but regardless.
If one of the requirements for a viable Government subsidized health care system is that people in society are largely well-off economically that they can absorb that tax, then The viability of a system relies more on the economic health of a society then it being Government run.
It's a little misleading to hold Obama (or any other president) accountable for the deficit incurred during his first year of office. That's because the previous administration already set the federal budget for that fiscal year.
Before Obama took office, President Bush's last budget (FY 2009) created a deficit of $1.16 trillion. That fiscal year began on October 1, 2008, and continued until September 30, 2009. That means most of that deficit occurred after Obama took office in January. It's not accurate to attribute it to him.
FY 2009 - Even though the budget had been approved, Congress added emergency funding to stop the Great Recession. It added the first year's worth of spending from Obama's Economic Stimulus Act to the FY 2009 budget. That $253 billion accrues to Obama.
FY 2010 - Obama's first budget created a $1.294 trillion deficit.
FY 2011 - This budget contributed $1.3 trillion to the debt.
FY 2012 - The deficit was $1.087 trillion.
FY 2013 - This was the first Obama budget where the deficit, $679 billion, was less than $1 trillion. Thank sequestration, which forced a 10 percent cut in spending.
FY 2014 - The deficit was $485 billion.
FY 2015 - The deficit fell further, to $438 billion.
FY 2016 - The deficit is expected to be $600 billion
FY 2017 (Current Budget) - The deficit is projected to be $441 billion.
When the deficits from all these budgets are added together, President Obama increased the debt by $6.576 trillion.
Is it fair to blame any president for events over which he had no control? During Obama's terms, there was less federal income than usual. That is because the recession and the Bush tax cuts reduced tax receipts. At the same time, the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and other mandatory programs continued to increase.
The War on Terror, although technically over, was still being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The fairest method is to measure the debt incurred by Obama's specific policies. The Congressional Budget Office does this for every program. The CBO found that the largest contributor to the debt was the Obama tax cuts, which were an extension of the Bush tax cuts. They added $858 billion to the debt in 2011 and 2012.
The next largest was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It added $787 billion between 2009 and 2012. It cut taxes, extended unemployment benefits, and funded job-creating public works projects.
Like the Obama tax cuts, the ARRA was an attempt to stimulate the economy after the 2008 financial crisis
Obama increased military spending to an average of $800 billion a year. In fact, his security budget request of $895 billion in FY 2011 set a new record. In FY 2013, he requested $851 billion. That happened even though he withdrew troops from Iraq in 2012 and eliminated the threat from Osama bin Laden in 2011. Obama spent $857 billion in contingency funds during his administration. That was more than the $850 billion Bush devoted to the War on Terror.
What about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? It didn't add anything to the debt in Obama's first term. That's because most of its costs began in 2014. That's when it set up health insurance exchanges and extended coverage to more low-income people. In fact, tax increases offset costs to the tune of $104 billion between 2010 and 2019.
Congress and Obama also negotiated the sequestration budget cuts. They cut the deficit by a small percent. When all these are added up, Obama's debt contribution was $983 billion between 2009 and 2017. (Source: Ezra Klein, "Doing the Math on Obama's Deficits," The Wall Street Journal, January 31, 2014.)
https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293
I don't really see why there is criticism of expenses for Trumps personal travel since...Government can just borrow money then.
While Hillary advocating going after Russia doesn't somehow.
Because Obama explicitly stating the intention to get rid of another sovereign states Government through military action doesn't mean much except Obama gets a Nobel Peace Prize.
Exaggerated stereotypes applied unfairly reeks of political partisanship and hardly reflects reality.
No, i prefer realistic analysis then exaggeration.
you know we are a generous and welcoming people in the United States.
But People who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.
We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants
Obama.
yet i do not see even the same level of 'outrage'.
Which even under International law is considered an Act of War.
It cannot even be faulted on the American Government in general, because Obama circumvented Congress.
Hell i despise George Bush, but i have to at least acknowledge that he got Congress approval for the Iraq War.
Obama circumvented even that for Libya.