• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:222]

Arbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
10,395
Reaction score
2,744
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

Good, they should have started with a single payer system to begin with.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system - Las Vegas Sun News



As many have said from the start... the plan: destroy it, so we can take over the whole thing. [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Well they're doing a pretty ****ty job of destroying it since Obamacare makes insurance mandatory.

And they should've started with single payer to begin with. Too bad the country gets its panties in a wad with anything that smells remotely close to "socialism."
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

Well they're doing a pretty ****ty job of destroying

I understand you are not in the health care field, so don't know all the problems it is causing/going to cause. But when availability and options shrink, and you lose someone in your family due to it, perhaps you will realize Obamacare AND single payer is the wrong path.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

People may assume that single payer health care is something most conservatives should and don't support, but for this conservative, I consider basic health care for all to be something that a government should take on because of the massive nature of its impact on society and the wellbeing of its citizens. No first world society should have its people fearful of getting sick because such illness could bankrupt them and their family.

I'm not talking of the government taking over full control of the healthcare system, just ensuring all people have access to basic care and then leave the "extras" to individuals to purchase supplementary insurance for. Here in Canada, the system is evolving all the time, becoming more streamlined, and delisting services which are then up to patients to cover, often through their own insurance. But purchasing that extra coverage is their choice, not a government mandate.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

if this is true, he sure went about it the wrong way
he should have taken all age limits off of medicare when he first took office and had marginal control over both houses of congress
but he didn't
instead, he played footsie with the republicans
and we have the watered down mess that is Obamacare, today
which is anything but the single payer program we could have had in '09

but it IS interesting to note that the wingers believe everything harry ass reid has to say
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

Good, they should have started with a single payer system to begin with.

They couldn't do that, that is too much like socialism...and as 'ballin says, we Americans feel socialism is anti-American...and it is...so they had to lie to get enough of the wishy-washy folks on board, get them addicted and get the us strapped securely down, like we are now, so the needle can be injected, whether we want it or not.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

Some actual quotes from the question and the discussion would've been useful. Based on the line below, it sounds like they may have been talking about getting away from the employer-sponsored insurance system eventually, which is very different from moving toward single-payer.

Reid cited the post-WWII auto industry labor negotiations that made employer-backed health insurance the norm, remarking that “we’ve never been able to work our way out of that” before predicting that Congress would someday end the insurance-based health care system.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

People may assume that single payer health care is something most conservatives should and don't support, but for this conservative, I consider basic health care for all to be something that a government should take on because of the massive nature of its impact on society and the wellbeing of its citizens.

We have a Constitution. It limits what the federal government can do. Healthcare for all is not one of the items listed that they have the power to do. Amend the Constitution and then they can, until then, they have overstepped their boundaries. At a state level it is all fine and good (legal) but not at a federal level.

Could they work out a federal system that covers catastrophic only? Yeah, if they actually cared about the citizens and doing the right thing in the right way. But they do not, so they didn't go for that.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

We knew this in the early primaries in 2008. This is why we didn't vote for him. Your information is 5 years behind the times.

Those that pay attention knew it. But it's timely to bring it back up now.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

People may assume that single payer health care is something most conservatives should and don't support, but for this conservative, I consider basic health care for all to be something that a government should take on because of the massive nature of its impact on society and the wellbeing of its citizens. No first world society should have its people fearful of getting sick because such illness could bankrupt them and their family.

I'm not talking of the government taking over full control of the healthcare system, just ensuring all people have access to basic care and then leave the "extras" to individuals to purchase supplementary insurance for. Here in Canada, the system is evolving all the time, becoming more streamlined, and delisting serviwe ces which are then up to patients to cover, often through their own insurance. But purchasing that extra coverage is their choice, not a government mandate.

We already had a system in place to do that, covering the basics but you had to earn anything above that. We have a system, or used to have a system, that, if you worked hard and smart, would allow you to purchase just about anything, within reason, that you wanted to buy.

This pack of lies-piece of highly polished fertilizer-will take down the whole system eventually... and it will be far worse than what we had, insuring less people fully before it finally collapses. What those of you who back this should have to do is put up some kind of bond, some insurance against this future disaster that only the people who voted against the monstrosity would be able to take advantage of when it crumbles and falls on its face.... kinda leaving you in the lurch then like the folks that are for this are doing to the rest of us now.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

We have a Constitution. It limits what the federal government can do. Healthcare for all is not one of the items listed that they have the power to do. Amend the Constitution and then they can, until then, they have overstepped their boundaries. At a state level it is all fine and good (legal) but not at a federal level.

Could they work out a federal system that covers catastrophic only? Yeah, if they actually cared about the citizens and doing the right thing in the right way. But they do not, so they didn't go for that.

I think your Supreme Court, in its decision on Obamacare, indicated that the constitution did allow for universal healthcare at the federal level through the taxing authority granted the federal government under the constitution. It ruled the mandate was a tax. As such, there is no need for a constitutional amendment for the federal government to do what I suggested.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

I think your Supreme Court, in its decision on Obamacare, indicated that the constitution did allow for universal healthcare at the federal level through the taxing authority granted the federal government under the constitution. It ruled the mandate was a tax. As such, there is no need for a constitutional amendment for the federal government to do what I suggested.

That the Supreme Court says something, does not mean it is correct. It is the same court that upheld slavery and segregation as legal at one point in time.

Even what they said as far as taxing was related to the mandate, and was pretty shallow on legal grounds.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

That the Supreme Court says something, does not mean it is correct. It is the same court that upheld slavery and segregation as legal at one point in time.

Even what they said as far as taxing was related to the mandate, and was pretty shallow on legal grounds.

Well, unless you can name a higher power under your constitution than the Supreme Court, I think it does mean it's correct.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

We have a Constitution. It limits what the federal government can do. Healthcare for all is not one of the items listed that they have the power to do. Amend the Constitution and then they can, until then, they have overstepped their boundaries. At a state level it is all fine and good (legal) but not at a federal level.

Could they work out a federal system that covers catastrophic only? Yeah, if they actually cared about the citizens and doing the right thing in the right way. But they do not, so they didn't go for that.
ok, arbo
here is the preamble to the Constitution:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
i have emphasized the salient portion which gives basis for a national single payer system
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

ok, arbo
here is the preamble to the Constitution:

i have emphasized the salient portion which gives basis for a national single payer system

Do you really not understand what a preamble is? Really? Because that's poor.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

Works for me as long as he is the single payer :lol:

It would have been the better system to begin with, but I doubt the medical lobby who loved Obamacare and now hate Obamacare would have ever supported a single payer system.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

Do you really not understand what a preamble is? Really? Because that's poor.

so, you want to wrap yourself in the Constitution while ignoring the preamble which asserts that we the people have adopted it
not surprising you would choose to ignore that which proves your ideology wrong
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

so, you want to wrap yourself in the Constitution while ignoring the preamble which asserts that we the people have adopted it
not surprising you would choose to ignore that which proves your ideology wrong

I don't ignore the preamble. I simply know what the purpose of a preamble is, whereas you appear not to. The preamble states the purpose of the document, why it was written, what it will cover. It is not 'law' as the rest of the document is. I don't know why you and so many others continue to not get that reality. To think the preamble is anything else it to show ignorance.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

I don't ignore the preamble. I simply know what the purpose of a preamble is, whereas you appear not to. The preamble states the purpose of the document, why it was written, what it will cover. It is not 'law' as the rest of the document is. I don't know why you and so many others continue to not get that reality. To think the preamble is anything else it to show ignorance.

what you are telling us is that it is inconvenient for you to accept what the preamble says, that we the people promote those things which are for the general welfare of the people
and single payer health coverage falls in that category
just as the supreme court recently told us that Obamacare should be found Constitutional
yet another reality that you pretend to ignore, because to acknowledge it would upend your ideology
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

what you are telling us is that it is inconvenient for you to accept what the preamble says,

What I am telling you, is the preamble is an introduction to the Constitution, stating the purpose that Constitution was written and what in general the purpose of the Constitution is. It is nothing more. It does not carry the force of law, it's JUST AN INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATION. Why do you refuse to understand that? The more you keep on, the more foolish you look.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

Soon they will begin handing out the little red books with Barry's face on the front.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

this is a stupid way to get to single payer; we should have done that from the start. if it does get us there, that will be one of the few good things the PPACA accomplishes.
 
re: Reid admits to the end game of Obamacare...-[W:22]

And they should've started with single payer to begin with. Too bad the country gets its panties in a wad with anything that smells remotely close to "socialism."

Or people could just pay for their own healthcare. :shrug: Of course, people can't help but be charitable with everyone's goddamn money.
 
Back
Top Bottom