Hillary nearly collapses at Sep. 11th ceremony

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Given the costs involved most state governments couldn't carry a single payer system based on cost being compared with revenues collected. However, the federal government is perfectly capable of funding the program. I find it interesting that Republicans argue that we can fund a $6 trillion dollar war, increase military funding, and deploy the American military all over the globe.... but they don't believe we could pay for a single payer system. Maybe we need to move from being a war dependent economy and invest those resources in the American people. Of course, that would mean increasing diplomacy and international relations, and partnering with international bodies to address regional and global crisis. We'd have stop being the world's police officer and work in a more cooperative manner.

The Federal Government gets its funding from the States. Thus if the States cannot afford single payer, what makes you think the whole Union can? Administratively, the States know better what the needs of their own people are. Did it ever occur to you that some States don't want single payer? Does that even matter to you? Let me ask you plainly, should all 50 States be required to submit to a national single payer system without a Constitutional Amendment requiring them to do so? It amazes me you think we should be investing even more of our lives to a Federal Government that proves everyday it cannot even handle the few duties enumerated to it in the Constitution, much less what they do outside of the Constitution's authority.

Brother, have you ever considered that 99% of the problems we have in this country are directly related to the Federal government operating outside of the powers enumerated to it in the constitution?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Actually, you're talking about corporate tax breaks. Corporate tax breaks can be beneficial in certain economic climates and in certain industries.

However, corporate subsidies are essentially grants from the government, subsidizing corporate business. Last year over $90 billion in corporate subsidies were given to corporations. The idea is, if the government subsidizes and props up these corporations they will stay state side and use the revenue to open more jobs. However, corporations tend to exploit the law and put the subsidies their given into foreign investments or accounts while also reporting record profits. It's basically "welfare" for corporations.

By the way, social welfare programs for the poor don't exceed $60 billion. Corporations leeching nearly 50% more tax payer dollars from the government than social welfare programs. This is why Democrats hit the roof when Republicans want to cut programs for the poor.... but increase corporate subsidies, all the while arguing that we can't afford programs that provide a social safety net. If the Republicans really wanted to save money, they'd cut funds to the welfare recipients who don't need it.... corporations.

Frankly, it's more difficult for a single mother of three to qualify for subsidized housing and food allotments than it is for a major corporation to rake in a couple billion in subsidies.



In 2013 President Obama submitted a plan that would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent, with a preferred rate of 25 percent for manufacturers. It would also allow small businesses to write off $1 million in investments. The Republican Congress opposed it and falsely accused the President's program of being an increase in small business taxes if passed. Frankly, here too, the Republicans blocked measures that would relieve the corporate tax burden, but in the end blamed Obama for high corporate taxes! LOL

Rather it's corporate tax cuts or Medicaid expansions, the Republicans hurt the American people by opposing them, only to turn around and blame America's pain on President Obama.



Do you know what I'm talking about when I mention "Medicaid expansions"? The expansions come with funding and the ACA allows the states time to take budgetary measures to prevent excessive tax hikes in the future.

How about we start weening ourselves at a Federal level from anything that is not specifically enumerated in the constitution to the Federal Government? It will take time for sure, but why not?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm curious about what you mean by, "they did nothing".

Exactly that. Other than using bribes to force obamacare on everyone, they did nothing. It was a do-nothing Democrat controlled Congress, which, IIRC, had more time off away from Congress than in recent history.

Originally Posted by Aquila

States that okayed Medicaid expansion are receiving billions in funds and medical providers are reporting that they are benefiting from the expansions while also expanding their ability to care for more citizens.

States wherein the GOP successfully blocked Medicaid expansion are losing out on receiving funds and their healthcare agencies are reporting higher costs.

Interestingly enough, those complaining about the ACA the most are arguing that they can't afford it because the price is too high. That's true, especially if you live in a state where the GOP blocked the Medicaid expansions.

Again, states that okayed Medicaid expansions are doing quite well and receiving the necessary funding, with providers even praising the move. The only states being "burdened" are those wherein the GOP blocked the expansions. Because these states aren't receiving the federal funding.

Untrue. This is pure partisan hackery. California is in the exchange and has participated fully, and yet insurance companies are withdrawing from participation due to higher costs.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Originalist

How about we start weening ourselves at a Federal level from anything that is not specifically enumerated in the constitution to the Federal Government? It will take time for sure, but why not?

On that, we can agree wholeheartedly. The Federal government is limited by intent, because the founders knew that an overreaching, far-off governing body would ultimately lead to tyranny.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

The Federal Government gets its funding from the States. Thus if the States cannot afford single payer, what makes you think the whole Union can? Administratively, the States know better what the needs of their own people are. Did it ever occur to you that some States don't want single payer? Does that even matter to you? Let me ask you plainly, should all 50 States be required to submit to a national single payer system without a Constitutional Amendment requiring them to do so? It amazes me you think we should be investing even more of our lives to a Federal Government that proves everyday it cannot even handle the few duties enumerated to it in the Constitution, much less what they do outside of the Constitution's authority.

Brother, have you ever considered that 99% of the problems we have in this country are directly related to the Federal government operating outside of the powers enumerated to it in the constitution?

What's so "amazing"? The guy is a democrat, what do you expect? More government, more, more, more, for the chilrenz.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

The Federal Government gets its funding from the States. Thus if the States cannot afford single payer, what makes you think the whole Union can?

The Federal Government gets its funding through taxation. While some taxes are for specific programs, the Federal Government gets roughly 92% of its revenues from the following:

1.) Federal income taxes paid by individuals: 47% of all tax revenues.
2.) Payroll taxes paid jointly by workers and employers: 34% of all tax revenues.
3.) Corporate income taxes paid by businesses: 11% of all tax revenues.

There are also a handful of other types of taxes, like customs duties and excise taxes that make up much smaller portions of federal revenue.

Administratively, the States know better what the needs of their own people are. Did it ever occur to you that some States don't want single payer? Does that even matter to you? Let me ask you plainly, should all 50 States be required to submit to a national single payer system without a Constitutional Amendment requiring them to do so?

I like how Canada phased in their system.

It amazes me you think we should be investing even more of our lives to a Federal Government that proves everyday it cannot even handle the few duties enumerated to it in the Constitution, much less what they do outside of the Constitution's authority.

It is evident that "Constitutional authority" is up for interpretation.

Brother, have you ever considered that 99% of the problems we have in this country are directly related to the Federal government operating outside of the powers enumerated to it in the constitution?

You mean, like SCHIP, a program that has successfully covered over 8 million American children who wouldn't have had insurance otherwise?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

How about we start weening ourselves at a Federal level from anything that is not specifically enumerated in the constitution to the Federal Government? It will take time for sure, but why not?

Because this is 2016 not the 1800's.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Exactly that. Other than using bribes to force obamacare on everyone, they did nothing. It was a do-nothing Democrat controlled Congress, which, IIRC, had more time off away from Congress than in recent history.

My fiancé's mother is actually doing quite well with a plan that finally meets her needs that she can afford.

Untrue. This is pure partisan hackery. California is in the exchange and has participated fully, and yet insurance companies are withdrawing from participation due to higher costs.

I take it that you're referring to UnitedHealth's withdraw from the markets in California. The company has virtually no presence at all in the California exchange market, by far the nation's largest with more than 1.5 million enrollees. UnitedHealth offered plans in the state for the first time in 2016, after sitting out the first two years of the Obamacare individual market. Covered California, the state's individual plan exchange, limited UnitedHealth's participation in the market. So, while UnitedHealth is America's largest insurer, its pulling out of California isn't as serious an issue as one might think. In fact, it was predicted.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Because this is 2016 not the 1800's.

Again, you refuse to consider that most States simply do not want single payer and also rather the Feds butt out of many other of their other affairs. It not being the 1800's is a silly argument. If such a consolidation was not acceptable in the 1800's when we had a much smaller population, then it is even less acceptable now with over 300 million people.

But you, favoring a totalitarian system, do not care what the will of the people is in the various States. Please just admit that you think single payer should be forced on all the States.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Again, you refuse to consider that most States simply do not want single payer and also rather the Feds butt out of many other of their other affairs. It not being the 1800's is a silly argument. If such a consolidation was not acceptable in the 1800's when we had a much smaller population, then it is even less acceptable now with over 300 million people.

I think that's a silly argument. We live in a far more advanced world with far more advanced and expensive treatments. We can't give the doctor a dozen eggs and a gallon of milk for a house call anymore. The world is moving forward and America is falling further and further behind the majority of the Western world. My girlfriend lived in Ely (UK) and Amsterdam (Netherlands). She's toured Europe and has first hand knowledge of how it could be here. I have friends and family from Canada. Although no system is perfect, no one in any of these nations would rather have a system like we have in the United States. After you live or experience such a system, you're fear of it dissipates.

I'm aware that many states don't want a single payer system. However, that's what advocacy is about. We have faith that as time passes it will become more and more evident that the way to go is single payer. We support H.R. 676. Here's a link to review the resolution:

http://www.pnhp.org/publications/uni...are-act-hr-676

Here's a link to frequently asked questions:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq

Dispelling myths about Single Payer:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2016/januar...r-all%E2%80%99

Don't believe everything you hear about single payer until you've checked it out for yourself.

But you, favoring a totalitarian system, do not care what the will of the people is in the various States. Please just admit that you think single payer should be forced on all the States.

The wondrous thing is, the "will of the people" can be changed. We are advocates for single payer. The goal isn't to FORCE a single payer system. The goal is to educate and have people sincerely look at the program and thereby have single payer become the "will of the people" and then the law of the land. We know it is an uphill battle. But we are committed to it.