While I have questions about how genuine the OP's motives are, I don't believe that the ideas behind the post are fantasy, and I do believe that through a careful balance of cuts and increases the debt can be reduced while the nation's quality of life can be improved. It simply requires both sides of the political spectrum to work together and makes decisions that require compromise on BOTH sides. Well, your first sentence makes it clear you would be unwilling to make the necessary steps to work together. But it is the second sentence that is interesting and worth exploring. If ACA is so repellent but simply extending Medicare could have worked... why didn't anyone propose that? Health care (and more precisely, health care insurance) has been a problem for many years. The GOP plans usually centered around DEregulating health care, or building more state-run exchanges. They usually focused on increased tax credits, and tort reform. The closest they seem to come to addressing preexisting conditions was the creating (and in Texas case, expanding) high-risk pools for those who can't get insurance through individual markets. I actually had experience getting insurance for my daughter (born with a heart defect) through Texas High Risk pool... it was incredibly expensive for the most basic of coverage. But since I couldn't get coverage through individual plans, I paid the $500/month just for her. But returning this discussion to the GOP proposals over time, none seemed to solve the main problems: extending coverage to those who can't afford coverage (what value is a tax credit to a lower income family if it doesn't cover the costs of expensive health care?, what value is a high-risk pool if the costs are prohibitive? So why wasn't extending Medicare proposed? And why didn't the GOP propose "tightening" requirements to have health insurance (eg. the mandates included in ACA)?
I disagree. The Democrats have repeatedly shown that they are willing to compromise to get laws that benefit the American people passed. The GOP is the party of the intransigent, claiming anything else is denial.
You do realize that the deficit was dramatically reduced under the Democrats over the last 6 years, right?
Deficit and debt are two different things, thumbs. It helps to know what you're talking about before you talk about it.
Everybody wants it all their way. That's why there has been and probably will not be any compromise. My proposal to cover children and those 60+ under Medicare is because, generally, if a person has an illness or disability, it will appear in his or her early or later years. Supplemental insurance will still be necessary, but it is generally affordable.
Deficits add to debt, and massive, untenable debt adds to the annual deficit, which means the government is limited in what it could have done.
I do believe we can reduce our national debt. Combining federal agencies and laying off excess staff, merging health care systems (Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration) and laying off excess and incompetent staff (especially in the VA) and lowering tax rates so that corporations bring home the trillions they have parked offshore...to cite a few of the courses we could pursue to whittle down the debt. When paying off a credit card, the bill might be $100 (including a lot of interest). If you pay $100 the debt can linger for years. If you pay $200, it goes away within a relatively short time. Same principle.
Your arguments generally are clear and cogent. However, your reply wanders as if you are riding your horse sidesaddle and blindfolded. I'm trying to see if we can reach a compromise somewhere in here.
I wish I were a motivator. No, my principal weapons in the art of persuasion are coffee, breakfast, a little wit, a cheerful disposition and respect for the person with whom I am conversing. Small moves get the job done ... eventually.
I was with ya till the part about "when congress reduces the national debt" Unless I live another 100 years (i'm already 47) i'm not gonna see that national debt be reduced
I have the utmost respect for doctors. There are a few bad ones that cause grief for everyone, and that's why I suggested a panel with doctors on board -- not to govern the medical system but to adjudicate potential lawsuits. Doctors can't practice medicine the way they should simply because they have lawyers waiting for any opportunity to make an ambulance chasing buck. (For the attorneys here with hurt feelings, I'm sure you have purpose and value, but you know the kind of lawyers to whom I am referring.) Also, my heart surgeon, kidney surgeon, eye surgeons and all the other surgeons to whom I owe my ambulatory condition deserve every penny they earn and more. You misjudge me mightily if you think I begrudge medical personnel a single nickel. My goal is simply to streamline the healthcare system so that doctors have fewer constraints and more freedom to heal their patients. Lowering the cost to patients does not necessarily mean paying health personnel less. It means taking the fat out of the system.
With oil revenues, consolidation of governmental entities and tax reform to encourage domestic companies to bring home the trillions they have parked offshore ... we are Americans. We can do it.
I am going to approach your argument from a cynical side and completely deviate from a practical approach, just as you are trying to do. Anytime anything comes into the national light, it will be sliced and diced down to a "Republican vs Democrat" argument. It doesn't matter what it is; ACA, Gay Rights, Iraq/Afgan War, Benghazi, the Beer summit, Abortion, immigration, Net Neutrality ect ... Even if it is something that makes sense for both sides, it will still be whittled down to make it a controversial issue. Keep in mind that we elect politicians to solve problems. If the problem is solved, then why do we need that politician? Its like working yourself out of a job. I have said this before, when the Republicans and Democrats work together, the people win and the politicians lose. If the GOP proposed that and the Democrats met in the middle, the GOP would still be losing all the elections. However, the GOP would never propose that and the Democrats would never meet in the middle. Lets take illegal immigration for example. Why has immigration become such a hot topic? In the grand scheme of things, who really cares if there are illegals here? We have much more important issues at hand to discuss. The answer is simple. Whichever party wins the hearts of the hispanic will gain their vote. The politicians are not here to make this country better, they are here to entrench their existence.
Debt does not mean the same as deficit. And yes, the deficit has been reduced under Obama: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-04/u-s-deficit-decline-to-2-8-of-gdp-is-unprecedented-turn.html http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-budget-deficit-in-2014-narrows-to-lowest-level-in-six-years-1413385493
From a trillion to a half-trillion, on top of an already unsustainable total debt. This is not affirmative action or net neutrality, we can't just rationalize different perspectives based on political alignment. This is an objectively and comprehensively bad situation regardless of who's in power.
You have a single example, I will point to the entirety of the GOP in Congress over the last six years. For f*** sake, they set records every single session for filibusters. It is telling that you see one man's actions as indicative of "intransigence" for an entire party and then hold that one example up as if is equivalent to the obstruction engaged in by the GOP. Reid's "intransigence" is an example of not allowing House legislation up for a debate and vote which would ultimately loose anyway. The GOP has obstructed every single thing with the possible exception of post office name changes or other truly meaningless legislation. Good God, they even obstructed to the point that the credit of United States debt was downgraded. That wasn't because of the inability of the country to service its debt, it was entirely about the political process, read the reports of the credit agencies.
