Why are you against universal health care?

[M14 Shooter]

Debt cannot be accrued unless we cut programs most Americans want to keep, while cutting taxes for the rich, and raising military spending.

That is an ideological statement, not a factual one.

Debt cannot be accrued except when spending exceeds revenue.
As every dollar spent springs from a choice to spend it, debt inherently springs from spending.

 

[Hector12]

Incorrect. The only way debt is accrued is by spending above revenue levels. Period.
BTW, you don’t speak for all Americans. Of course those on the dole want to keep getting their cheese.

Few want spending reductions on federal benefit programs​

The public is generally supportive of increasing or upholding existing domestic spending by the federal government, but want less funding allocated to foreign aid.

June 16, 2025

The public is not aligned with the priorities of Donald Trump’s “big bill” that is expected to reduce federal spending and extend tax cuts. Most people think the federal government spends too little on many of the federal benefit programs that the budget bill could cut.

A majority of adults think the federal government is already under-spending on key safety net programs including Medicare and Social Security. They also feel the country is not investing enough in education.

Few want spending reductions on federal benefit programs - AP-NORC

The public is generally supportive of increasing or upholding existing domestic spending by the federal government, but want less funding allocated to foreign aid.

apnorc.org

 

[Hector12]

None of which changes your ideological position into a fact.

What did I say about Reagan's economic policies that is not true?

 

[dblack]

Few want spending reductions on federal benefit programs​

Do you think their opinions would change if their taxes went up enough (across the board, for everyone) to balance the budget? Or would they be howling for these reductions?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What did I say about Reagan's economic policies that is not true?

The fact he cut taxes and increased military spending in no way necessitates that his policies added to the debt.
Thus, yours is an ideological statement, not a factual one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Few want spending reductions on federal benefit programs​

The public is generally supportive of increasing or upholding existing domestic spending by the federal government, but want less funding allocated to foreign aid.

June 16, 2025

The public is not aligned with the priorities of Donald Trump’s “big bill” that is expected to reduce federal spending and extend tax cuts. Most people think the federal government spends too little on many of the federal benefit programs that the budget bill could cut.

A majority of adults think the federal government is already under-spending on key safety net programs including Medicare and Social Security. They also feel the country is not investing enough in education.

See? You aren't speaking for all Americans - just like he said.

 

[Orangecat]

Few want spending reductions on federal benefit programs​

The public is generally supportive of increasing or upholding existing domestic spending by the federal government, but want less funding allocated to foreign aid.

June 16, 2025

The public is not aligned with the priorities of Donald Trump’s “big bill” that is expected to reduce federal spending and extend tax cuts. Most people think the federal government spends too little on many of the federal benefit programs that the budget bill could cut.

A majority of adults think the federal government is already under-spending on key safety net programs including Medicare and Social Security. They also feel the country is not investing enough in education.

Few want spending reductions on federal benefit programs - AP-NORC

The public is generally supportive of increasing or upholding existing domestic spending by the federal government, but want less funding allocated to foreign aid.

apnorc.org

Irrelevant.
The only way debt accrues is via spending above revenue levels.
That some people want to continue the unsustainable gravy train doesn’t change that fact.
Do you disagree?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

First off, I think it's important to note liberal democrats are retarded, foolish, and are unable to think critically.

Second, they point to countries who have UH to suggest we're in the same boat, when in fact we're clearly not. We're much bigger, and are at a greater threat of immigration.

Third, Lib. democrats are quick to approve of "free" benefits so long as it doesn't cost them anything.

Fourth, they often have very poor work ethics. Speak of critical thought, they don't seem to notice that effort=benefits. Benefits for "free" = laziness and dependence, and boy, lib. democrats sure love dependence, and rewarding laziness.

And finally, for example. I worked for an insurance agency that was govt. We had a monopoly on worker's comp for the State. We nearly dragged the State down in debt as we operated well in the red. The State opened the door to private WC, and that agency hired a great CEO, who when privatized, the agency immediately began operating in the black, bigly, and they still do today.

Idiocracy is an excellent name for you!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Because its too expensive

How about government healthcare for catastrophic illinesses?

But everything else paid out of pocket or through private insurance?

That’s a fantastic half baked idea! Have you thought about how a catastrophic illness is defined, who makes that determination and how it will be paid for? Would it be voluntary of mandatory? Would there be government subsidies for those who could not afford it? What happens to those who are seriously ill who do not have catastrophic coverage? Is needing to have two health care policies your idea of efficiency?

Private insurance? Would those insurers be regulated in any meaningful way? Or, would they be free to charge whatever they want for junk policies that do not cover much? Would they be able to reject people with pre existing conditions, impose annual and lifetime caps on benefits and charge for preventive care?

Expensive? For profit services of any kind are more expensive than those provided by government . Do you know what those health care execs pull down? Just ask Brian Thompson…Oh ,never mind too “late”

What is expensive for taxpayers is when we have a society of sick people who cannot afford insurance. People who are much sicker than they ever needed to be because they could not get care before they became critical , and then only basic care to stabilize in the ER ( at taxpayers expense) .

What is expensive is when you have too many people who used to be productive taxpayers on disability instead because they did not get proper care.. Smarten the **** up!

 

[Hector12]

Irrelevant.
The only way debt accrues is via spending above revenue levels.
That some people want to continue the unsustainable gravy train doesn’t change that fact.
Do you disagree?

No. The national debt was under control until Trump cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%, while raising military spending. Since then Republicans have cut taxes for the rich and raised military spending whenever they have had the power.

 

[Hector12]

See? You aren't speaking for all Americans - just like he said.

I never said I was speaking for all Americans. I said I was speaking for most Americans.

 

[Billiejeens]

A Medicare for All type program. Everyone has access to health care, funded by taxpayers. A British-style healthcare program.

Why not make the system better instead of worse?

 

[Billiejeens]

That would be sort of stupid.

Most people can handle their own financial affairs, so why shouldn't they/

Of course some people can't.

So maybe the government needs to set up charity clinics to help poverty affected individual and the indigent? And leave the rest of us alone

Add illegal aliens to that and we currently have that -
They are called emergency rooms and other clinics.

 

[Hector12]

The fact he cut taxes and increased military spending in no way necessitates that his policies added to the debt.
Thus, yours is an ideological statement, not a factual one.

During the Reagan administration Republicans cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

The national debt increased from $908 billion to $2,602 billion.

U.S. National Debt by Year

 

[Mac-7]

That’s a fantastic half baked idea! Have you thought about how a catastrophic illness is defined, who makes that determination and how it will be paid for?

I have not sat down to write the rules myself

No one person will

But I know it can be done

 

[Orangecat]

No. The national debt was under control

until Trump cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%, while raising military spending. Since then Republicans have cut taxes for the rich and raised military spending whenever they have had the power.

Trump could've cut the tax rate to 1% and we still wouldn't accumulate debt if we restrained spending to revenue levels. Even by your own metric, it was spending that caused the added debt. Are you stupid or something?

 

[frigidweirdo]

And the first time Taylor Swift or Lebron James had to wait 2 months to get her larynx or his knee checked out and neither was allowed to pay for a private consultation (the Hillary model), the usual suspects would be demanding a private option, which the rich would love while everyone else had to suffer through the public option. You're just not going to see Taylor Swift in the waiting room with everyone else for 6 hours waiting to be seen for a sore throat.

So?

If the rich want to pay extra on top for private, who cares?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That’s a fantastic half baked idea! Have you thought about how a catastrophic illness is defined, who makes that determination and how it will be paid for? Would it be voluntary of mandatory?

Funny how you think this doesn't apply equally as well to UHC.
Smarten the **** up!

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. The national debt was under control until Trump cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%, while raising military spending.

That is an ideological statement, not a factual one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

During the Reagan administration Republicans cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf
The national debt increased from $908 billion to $2,602 billion.
U.S. National Debt by Year

Fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
So.... yours is an ideological statement, not a factual one.