“The reason why I posted that question to the "conversation starter" was what I took to be an assumption on his part that all Christians believe in creationism and that criticizing that stance is an assault on Christianity. A position that I find ludicrous.”
dwes09 on Nov 23, 2013 at 04:01:45
“Well, that is clearly what he assumes. I'm not Christian, but know that most Christians are not Evangelical or fundamentalist. And even among them are some who accept evolution with no conflict to their faith (such as the director of the human genome project,Francis Collins, who considers himself an Evangelical and yet accepts evolution).”
“As do I, even quite devout ones (one an Episcopal Bishop). But whether they do or not, opposing the teaching of accepted science in public schools is inappropriate. There are more than enough Christian schools to please those who do not accept modern science.”
“Please cite your sources for this statement - "Is that why we're continually searching for ways to save it?"
Also, please make an argument as to how exactly a single payer system would cause our national debt to "explode".
Thanks in advance.”
PeaceLuvJoy on Nov 22, 2013 at 16:45:18
“All rhetoric aside, I'm really surprised at the question. Saving Medicare, Medicaid & SS, are discussed frequently. Anyway, here is some information that may help explain it.
Medicaid and Medicare had a gross combined enrollment of 119,249,000 in 2011. At the same time, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics said that 112,556,000 people worked full-time in the United States in 2011, including 17,806,000 who worked for all levels of government and 94,750,000 who worked for the private sector.
What this means is that there are more people on Medicaid/Medicare then there are full time workers. I'll assume you know how our government is funded.
If you consider that Healthcare expenditures, as they stand today, comprise 1/8th of the nations economy. This means that the money spent on healthcare, i.e. doctors, hospitals, medical research, pharmaceuticals, medical insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. is roughly 2 trillion dollars. You want the government to take this over and add millions of more people to the system. Our government is already 17 trillion dollars in debt and for only the second time in our nations history, our debt exceeds GDP. This means the government has more debt than the country earns. The difference between now and then was that following the WWII, the rest of the world was in pretty bad shape, we had virtually no competition in the world, not the case today. A government takeover of healthcare means one thing, a massive bureaucracy and a whole lot of money we don't have.”
“Why? Why would you prefer our "old system", the one that the World Health Organization ranks at 37th, the one that spends more money than any other in the world, the one where 80 million people either have inadequate health insurance or none at all? What possible reason could you have, when even most conservative politicians realize our system isn't working and needs to be fixed?
And what's wrong with expanding Medicare (single payer) to cover everyone? Surely you have reasons to believe what you do concerning our healthcare in this country - what are they?”
cristoballs on Nov 22, 2013 at 14:32:13
“However, when everyone is pooled together and everyone wants something for themselves like Viagra, regular checkups, low deductibles, then the costs add up. And when insurers sell group policies, they base their prices on what is offered in the policy, regardless if you need coverage for it.”
cristoballs on Nov 22, 2013 at 14:32:03
“Because we're heading in the wrong direction. That's why. I'm not saying the old system was perfect, by any means. But the data we have shows that individualized plans are not only more affordable than group plans, but that they are less wasteful as well, and on average have a much lower profit margin. By and large, most people have a lot more control over their health than the media would like you to believe. So much of our health care costs could be eliminated if people just made better choices about their own personal health, i.e. exercise more, stop smoking, drink less, eat healthier diets. But the fact is, we've become a culture dependent on health care to help us deal with the bad lifestyle decisions, most of which are preventable. And thus, we expect insurance to cover things that insurance really shouldn't cover. Insurance was never meant to be a means to cover regular medical costs, which can typically be paid for out of pocket. For things like birth control and annual checkups that are regularly recurring expenses, it makes no sense to hand your money over to a middle man to pay for those things. Insurance should be for catastrophic emergencies that typically cannot be covered out of pocket. This will ensure that insurance can cover more people with lower premiums.”
“What's "horrible" about single payer? The rest of the civilized world seems to like it well enough. Perhaps you could provide credible examples of how horrible it is - especially in contrast to our system (which the WHO ranks at 37th)?
The government seems to have done pretty well with Medicare, which is basically a single payer system. I find this notion that the government can't do anything well kind of foolish.”
PeaceLuvJoy on Nov 22, 2013 at 12:49:21
“"The government seems to have done pretty well with Medicare"
Is that why we're continually searching for ways to save it?
What's horrible about single payer is that our $17 trillion dollar debt would explode exponentionally.”
“This report was highlighted by multiple news outlets as a victory for Obamacare because so much money was refunded to people insured by policies that did not meet the MLR standards set by Obamacare, most of which were individualized plans. Of course, when you look at the numbers, the average premium for individualized plans was considerably less than group plans, and the profit margins were also considerably lower.”
cristoballs on Nov 22, 2013 at 12:35:48
“No, I'd much rather prefer a bankrupt government, that's over $17 Trillion in debt to take on the added responsibility of paying for my health care.”
“well, I did expect someone to trot out that canard, and actually, I do agree with you. It's why I didn't support him in the primary. but at least he did have some experience in government, both at the state and federal level. Ms Cheney has none.
“No one thought congress would be so foolish as to let the sequester happen. Obama's fault in this was to not realize that plenty of Republicans were perfectly ok with the sequester. Trying to pin this on Obama is disingenuous, at the least.”
giftsbasketsetc on Nov 21, 2013 at 13:04:24
“No spin here it was Obama's idea - Tell your comment to Polifact
“yours is a shallow understanding of the situation”
giftsbasketsetc on Nov 21, 2013 at 12:08:14
“it was Obama’s negotiating team that came up with the idea for defense cuts in 2011, though they were intended to prod Congress to come up with a better deal for reining in the deficit, not as an effort to make those cuts reality.
Obama can’t rightly say the sequester isn’t his,”
“The House was considered by the founder's as the organ to best represent the will of the people - but it's hard to say it does when one party gets close to a million and a half overall more votes than the other yet still ends up as the minority... The advantages of incumbency and gerrymandering are clearly warping the function of this body...
The Senate didn't even used to be an elective body - the founder's set it up to reflect anything but the will of the people. Personally, I find it to be one of the most absurd institutions amongst representative democracies in the entire world. Our country's republic was an experiment, bold for it's time. Since then there are many countries that have set up more workable systems, using the experiment as a template and improving on it. Again IMO.