Newt, Ron Paul and Mitt are FOR a "single payer" system.

The day that unexpected massive grocery bills and unexpected massive costs to to keep a shirt on your back starts forcing people into bankruptcy you will be posing a serious question. You aren't. You are looking at this through ideological glasses where many just see single payer as the best way to solve a legit problem.

That day is exactly why I'm asking the question. You're all citing the fact that health care is the number one cause of bankruptcy and that's why we should nationalize it. Is it always government's responsibility to "do something" about the number one cause of bankruptcy? If so, what's number two? Because once we solve health care, there will be a new number one.

The frustrating thing is, we could nationalize health care in a way that addressed the constitutional concerns. We could pass an amendment that ensured that nationalizing services was the exception and not the new rule. But by simply assuming that the general welfare and commerce clauses allow government to control anything and everything that suits the majority, we're creating a really dangerous precedent. And with the next problem we face, it will be that much easier to turn to caretaker government as the solution.

For a guy who likes to point his finger and accuse people of being "partisan" you sure spout a lot of partisan crap in regards to your own ideology.

There's nothing partisan in my argument. I don't trust the Republicans on this issue any more than I trust the Democrats. I don't see them as genuinely against the nationalization effort, and with Romney or Gingrich in particular, doubt they'll do anything to substantially change ACA. They're just pissy that they aren't running the scam.

I specifically said that your argument is partisan in respect to your ideology. I know that you don't identify with any party.

Nationalize "food and clothing"? C'mon now. I expect the government to step in and help the most needy (like they do now) and should a famine of some sort kick in, I certainly expect the government to do what it can to alleviate the problem. But pulling the "what's next, nationalize food?" card and pointing your finger at people and calling them Commies for shrugging off your ideologically driven prods is just silly.

Your argument is a slippery slope argument and it's taken to an absurd level. That's why people won't give you a serious answer because it's an absurd ideologically driven question.

The out of control cost of healthcare in this country is a legit issue that needs to be addressed without rhetorical fart noises like "what's next, nationalize food?"

I know you are smarter than that.

It's not an illegitimate argument.

Look at what has happened with the anti-smoking nazis....They won there and have now taken after trans fats, salt and fast food joints.

Doesn't matter what the committed do-gooder authoritarian gets, it's never enough.
 
The government can't effectively manage the tasks they have now, and you want to give them another task? :cuckoo:
 
That's bullshit. Government might manage it, but the people who join would pay. You guys have such a weird and unrealistic image of our government.

Single-payer health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exactly what I said:

Single-payer health care is medical care funded from a single insurance pool, run by the state.[4] Single-payer is form of monopsony: a market in which one buyer faces many sellers. Single-payer is not the same as universal health care (it is possible to have either without the other). A single-payer-universal-health-care plan for an entire population can be financed from a pool to which many parties – employees, employers, and the state – have contributed.

Managed by the government, but funded by the people.

You said the people who join it pay, what actually happens is the government steals money from everyone and pays for it. No one joins a single payer system, everyone gets co opted into it.
 
The government can't effectively manage the tasks they have now, and you want to give them another task? :cuckoo:

You are mistaking effective government and when Republicans are in charge. Look at all the disasters for the last 15 years. Who was in charge?

For instance, who was in charge after Katrina? "Good job Brownie?" Bush put a "horse show judge" in charge of FEMA.

Then the Hurricane that went up the east coast a short time ago. All Obama received was praise. Even from Republican like Chris Chrispie. Remember, it was Erik Cantor who wants to block disaster relief.

The disaster that was Iraq. Republicans.

Letting Bin Laden go? Guess who?

When a President is successful, you barely hear much. When they are a disaster, like under Bush and the Republicans, it's "muffled" with attempts to "keep it quiet". Thank Gawd for the Internet.
 
I specifically said that your argument is partisan in respect to your ideology. I know that you don't identify with any party.

If he doesn't identify with a party he is, by definition, non partisan.

Just saying.

Nationalize "food and clothing"? C'mon now. I expect the government to step in and help the most needy (like they do now) and should a famine of some sort kick in, I certainly expect the government to do what it can to alleviate the problem. But pulling the "what's next, nationalize food?" card and pointing your finger at people and calling them Commies for shrugging off your ideologically driven prods is just silly.

Your argument is a slippery slope argument and it's taken to an absurd level. That's why people won't give you a serious answer because it's an absurd ideologically driven question.

And we all know that slippery slopes never get ridiculous in reality, until they do. The income tax was originally touted as a way to get more money out of rich people.People at that time who argued that it would eventually be applied to everyone were dismissed as kooks, and were told that the government would never go down that slippery slope. Withing two years after it actually had the power Congress was taxing everyone's income.

The out of control cost of healthcare in this country is a legit issue that needs to be addressed without rhetorical fart noises like "what's next, nationalize food?"

Let us agree that you are correct, can you tell me how the PPACA is going to actually address that issue? Keep in mind that not only do I have my usual arsenal of studies that you have already ignored, I also have CBO studies that show that all of the pilot programs the ACA included that were touted by Obama, and you, as cost cutting measures are not only not cutting costs, many of them are actually increasing costs.

By the way, did you notice that Obama did not mention any of the cost cutting he has previously attributed to the PPACA in this years SOTU? I guess he actually read the CBO report, unlike you.

I know you are smarter than that.

I used to think you were, but I think you decided to become a partisan instead of a thinker.
 
If that's the reasoning, then why wouldn't food, clothing, shelter, etc.... also be considered 'rights'? Shouldn't government also be responsible for providing these?

I take it you've missed the multiple threads bitching about SNAP and Section 8 vouchers? Federal spending on such things has existed for decades.

Those are safety nets designed to help people who fall through the cracks. PPACA, and most of the proposed health care "reforms" propose broad state encroachment on previously private services. They're radically different than the programs you cite.

In any case, pointing to precedent doesn't assuage my concerns in the slightest, and only underlines that earlier 'slippery slope' arguments against those programs were right on target.
 
That day is exactly why I'm asking the question. You're all citing the fact that health care is the number one cause of bankruptcy and that's why we should nationalize it. Is it always government's responsibility to "do something" about the number one cause of bankruptcy? If so, what's number two? Because once we solve health care, there will be a new number one.

The frustrating thing is, we could nationalize health care in a way that addressed the constitutional concerns. We could pass an amendment that ensured that nationalizing services was the exception and not the new rule. But by simply assuming that the general welfare and commerce clauses allow government to control anything and everything that suits the majority, we're creating a really dangerous precedent. And with the next problem we face, it will be that much easier to turn to caretaker government as the solution.

For a guy who likes to point his finger and accuse people of being "partisan" you sure spout a lot of partisan crap in regards to your own ideology.

There's nothing partisan in my argument. I don't trust the Republicans on this issue any more than I trust the Democrats. I don't see them as genuinely against the nationalization effort, and with Romney or Gingrich in particular, doubt they'll do anything to substantially change ACA. They're just pissy that they aren't running the scam.

I specifically said that your argument is partisan in respect to your ideology. I know that you don't identify with any party.

Then you are, apparently, using "partisan" as a replacement for principled or ideological. I'll cop to those, but I know of no definition of "partisan" that applies.

Your argument is a slippery slope argument and it's taken to an absurd level. That's why people won't give you a serious answer because it's an absurd ideologically driven question.

Nope. It's a serious question that people want a serious answer to. You can dismiss it if you like, but it won't help sell your plans for reform. If fans of nationalizing health care want to be taken seriously, they need to face the concerns people have about those plans, or accept that people don't want to buy a 'pig in a poke'.
 
Those are safety nets designed to help people who fall through the cracks. PPACA, and most of the proposed health care "reforms" propose broad state encroachment on previously private services. They're radically different than the programs you cite.

Means-tested government contributions to household spending on essentials are "radically different" from each other? Presumably on the grounds that you'd feel a little silly if you were also compelled to claim food and housing have been "nationalized" for the last 50 years because some folks get help paying for them?
 
The out of control cost of healthcare in this country is a legit issue that needs to be addressed without rhetorical fart noises like "what's next, nationalize food?"

Let us agree that you are correct, can you tell me how the PPACA is going to actually address that issue? ...

The only thing I've seen are vague promises that it will 'eventually' bring down health care spending (through preventative care and the like) which isn't even the same thing as addressing rising health care prices. Most assessments agree it will actually increase health care inflation the foreseeable future.

PPACA was never intended to do anything about health care inflation, which is what makes it so damned frustrating. It's simply trying to change who pays.
 
Last edited:
The out of control cost of healthcare in this country is a legit issue that needs to be addressed without rhetorical fart noises like "what's next, nationalize food?"

Let us agree that you are correct, can you tell me how the PPACA is going to actually address that issue? ...

The only thing I've seen are vague promises that it will 'eventually' bring down (through preventative care and the like). Most assessments agree it will actually increase costs for the foreseeable future.

PPACA was never intended to do anything about health care inflation, which is what makes it so damned frustrating. It's simply trying to change who pays.

Fair dinkum.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top