#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Is the IRS Commissioner rejecting Obamacare a premonition for derailment?
Acting IRS Commissioner rather not switch to ObamaCare.
YES
Side Score: 6
|
NO
Side Score: 5
|
|
1
point
1
point
|
No, as he says in the video, as a federal employee he has excellent healthcare and the plan is designed for those who either do not have healthcare or cannot get affordable healthcare. An exact quote, the actual point of what he says outside of Fox spin, "If I'm an individual who does not have affordable coverage or am unhappy with my coverage, then it's my understanding the exchanges would offer a competitive alternative to look at..." It's a pro-obamacare statement, not negative at all. That is precisely how the plan is meant to work. The premise is incorrect. As anyone who wants to bother researching the bill outside of Fox fantasy land will quickly find, no one anywhere is forced to switch healthcare providers, insurances, or doctors if they do not want to. When the specifics of the bill are surveyed, even republicans in fair majorities support the bill, it is not until you call it Obamacare do the sadly misinformed right wing drones suddenly become fearful and paranoid--specifically due to the continued misinformation campaign represented in this debate. Side: NO
-1
points
Of course, federal employees has excellent healthcare, they are the leechers, nothing that they do is market oriented, so they take as they please. The exchanges will not offer anything more competitive because competition simply can't arise from central planning. Central planning always fails. "Last Thursday, representatives of three of the nation’s largest unions fired off a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, warning that Obamacare would “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class." Unions Side: YES
Federal employees pay taxes, provide essential services, and take up less of the social safety net than private workers due to better pay and better benefits. If they did not exist private workers would not suddenly and magically have more money. They'd in fact have less because the social constructs only societies and not private businesses can create, would crumble. And central planning can and does work often. For example our highway system and our military. Both the greatest the world has ever seen in their categories, both centrally planned. No money-based independent system of competition has ever created something so beneficial to so many citizens and businesses, private or public. Side: NO
0
points
Federal employees don't pay taxes, that is impossible. In order to be a taxpayer, good and services need to be created, they are tax consumers. Actually, if they didn't exist, there would be suddenly more money. Rather than consume resources with government, this money would be used in savings and investment to produce. Private business could thrive, remember private business pays the bills of government, not the other way around as you suggest. Really, 40,000 people die every year using government highways and roads. That is great central planning. The United States military is an imperialist war machine fueled by the military industrial complex. Delaying the individual mandate until 2015 is self evident how great central planning will be. Side: YES
Federal employees don't pay taxes, that is impossible. In order to be a taxpayer, good and services need to be created, they are tax consumers. Goods and services are created. They fill out W2s like every other worker. They earn money, earn it, by working, and a percent is then contributed to the society which benefits and allows for our particular economic system. Your premise assumes that the money they are paid is not theirs by virtue of whom they work for. That is incorrect. Once the work is done they are owed that money. Any money they pay back is theirs, hence, they pay taxes. Actually, if they didn't exist, there would be suddenly more money. Rather than consume resources with government, this money would be used in savings and investment to produce. Private business could thrive, remember private business pays the bills of government, not the other way around as you suggest. That's incorrect of course, as we see any time power is shifted away from the people (government in a representative republic) and back to the few with the most resources. Every time this happens in the history of the world, it leads to greater gaps in wealth and less freedoms financially initially and eventually less social freedoms for the many. Never has the economic theory you base all arguments on as if it were scripture, ever worked. It's a cute theory, but it doesn't work in real life. In reality private businesses need government to provide services which they on their own cannot, roads, military, police, schools to educate a workforce for them, and today since we do not enforce a fair minimum wage and other common-sense laws, a social net to help their lower paid workers eat and have shelter. That's only part of it. Without government everyone's standard of living decreases, all businesses make less money, all workers make less. Really, 40,000 people die every year using government highways and roads. What's the alternative? Is McDonalds going to start building better and safer roads? Is Google? The ironic thing here is that it is exactly those who hold your odd paranoia about our shared government who are dead-against measures to make those highways safer like lowered speed limits, repaved roads, added lanes, etc. On the one hand if this debate were "should we invest in better roads" you'd be complaining about wasting money blah blah let a private company build the roads, or whatever. But when that is not the complaint you shift to "See, these roads are unsafe, that proves government is bad!" On the one hand you won't let us, the people, make things safer, then you use it being unsafe to support your misguided theory. The United States military is an imperialist war machine fueled by the military industrial complex. Agreed. But it is still the best in the history of the world, and therefore supports my point. Delaying the individual mandate until 2015 is self evident how great central planning will be. You are misusing the word self-evident. I think though that the fact that in the U.S. we pay the most per capita for health insurance by almost double, yet have the worst healthcare of any industrialized nation and many 2nd-world countries, highlights what a miserable failure allowing insurance to base a necessity, health, on a greed-based economic model is. You see it already. Health costs have already gone down since parts of the plan have been implemented. And just like every other country with a similar plan, as more of it is implemented costs will go down further and actual care will improve. The problem is the only examples of a 100% free-market system concerning healthcare are all horrible at providing health care and cost way more money. Every single one. In real life, once again, your theory does not hold true. Side: NO
1
point
These goods and services are not created, they are simply transferred to from private funds to so called public funds. This is what taxation is, the expropriation of property to the state. The filling out of the W2 forms is simply an accounting scheme. Government employee refunded tax money is just a reduction in pay from the same bucket the money came from in the first place, it is impossible to add to the same bucket if you are subtracting from it. How does one earn it if it was never their money to begin with? It is not their money because how they obtained it was through violence and coercion rather than voluntary exchange. It is laughable to even think you actually think libertarianism is the reason for greater gaps in wealth and less freedoms financially and personally, yet the United States is the closest nation ever to become libertarian, yet it still never happened. Libertarianism is only two centuries old. Tyrannical government is millenniums old. History shows the opposite where these power shifts from the people to the elite has always come from oppressive and tyrannical government even with democracy. In reality, government simply has NO FUNDS without private businesses, WHO PRODUCE goods and services without expropriation and voluntary exchange. Private business is the reason for the increase in the standard of living, not government. Government only decreases the standard of living. Wow, you are the dumbest MOFO on this site. Suggesting McDonald's or Google build roads. Seriously, not sure if you know this, but PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES ALREADY BUILD ROADS, HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES, it is merely funded by government. The improvement would be competition in the financial and engineering of roads using their own funds. This would be investment because competing companies would striving for the best road surface and traffic. Government is not investment, it is spending. I am sure that the Romans said the same exact thing with regards to their military. Central planners always make claims that are unprovable especially when there is no tangible way to measure. This great central planning can start by counting the bodies of unconstitutional wars and drone strikes. What? Are you serious? Health care costs are not going down since parts of the plan have been implemented. Costs The problem with claiming that 100 free market health care system is horrible at providing healthcare and cost way more is an false assertion because the system has never been free market, it is been intervened by the government since day ONE. Side: YES
These goods and services are not created, they are simply transferred to from private funds to so called public funds. This is what taxation is, the expropriation of property to the state. That is not true at all. A road, a school, a military are all real things. Your theory demands that you pretend these real things are fake. Which is one of the many basic and huge problems with this theory. How does one earn it if it was never their money to begin with? It is not their money because how they obtained it was through violence and coercion rather than voluntary exchange. I've not been held up by a postal worker or anyone paving a road, or by a teacher. This is just demonization of a group of people providing a service. No money is "their" money until it is earned, but upon being earned it is then their money. You can argue that fact until you are blue in the face, but you will not win that argument. In reality, government simply has NO FUNDS without private businesses, WHO PRODUCE goods and services without expropriation and voluntary exchange. Private business is the reason for the increase in the standard of living, not government. Government only decreases the standard of living. And private business cannot prosper without a government to allow them to. It is a symbiotic relationship in between the two. Wow, you are the dumbest MOFO on this site. At this point its pretty evident I'm one of the smartest. And extremely evident that you are one of the least equipped to have any sort of debate outside of your very narrow and incorrect Libertarian economic theories. I will admit you have the weird and horribly flawed extreme Libertarian economic talking points memorized well, but really, you are horrible whenever you need to go outside of that narrow area. So are we done? Because I have a lot of mama jokes too. Suggesting McDonald's or Google build roads. Seriously, not sure if you know this, but PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES ALREADY BUILD ROADS, HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES, it is merely funded by government. You were the one suggesting they build roads. I suggest government should continue to, well to fund the building of roads by private companies as you point out (thought that went without saying, but okay). The improvement would be competition in the financial and engineering of roads using their own funds. This would be investment because competing companies would striving for the best road surface and traffic. Government is not investment, it is spending. Great, they should compete for who can build the best, safest, most efficient roads. Who's going to pay them though? I am sure that the Romans said the same exact thing with regards to their military. Central planners always make claims that are unprovable especially when there is no tangible way to measure. This great central planning can start by counting the bodies of unconstitutional wars and drone strikes. Meh, I see nothing inherently less constitutional about drone strikes than say, sending in a bunch of marines on foot. Same results, except maybe less dead marines. Whether the attack is constitutional you may have a point, but that's something which has been going on for decades now (wars without declaration of war, etc, though I think we did declare war in this case, but not in Pakistan if that is the point, but against Al-Quada... you see how it can get fuzzy). Broad assertions of constitutionality aside, and vague innuendos about Romans aside, what point precisely are you trying to make? I mean, pretty speech but what's your point? Like do you feel the Romans didn't really have the best plumbing around for the time, that that centrally planned marvel was a lie? Be precise. What? Are you serious? Health care costs are not going down since parts of the plan have been implemented. Costs The Blaze is a joke. Like all of your sources. Here are the real numbers. Actual numbers. http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/29/news/ The problem with claiming that 100 free market health care system is horrible at providing healthcare and cost way more is an false assertion because the system has never been free market, it is been intervened by the government since day ONE. The only government intervention in healthcare has been failed attempts at breaking up monopolies in the industry and trying to get drug companies to stop selling drugs that kill as many people as they help. Government has done very little in the way of overseeing the health industry, and that has been part of the problem. The fact is, the fact now you can look it up, the more free market the healthcare system, the more it costs and the less effective it is, the closer it is to a single-payer government run system, the less it costs and the more effective it is. That's just a fact. You can make all of the excuses for why that is, but that's the fact. Side: NO
1
point
By no means was it implied that these things are fake, they are transferred. iamdavidh is making the accusation that they are fake. They are real. Of course, no government employee has never held you up because they are not aggressors, it is the tax collectors along with the police. These would include the IRS and all Department of Revenue in 50 states. It is not earned because it was obtained by violence and coercion. If government services are SUPERIOR, then why do they need to use the threat or act of violence. Wrong, private business can prosper without a government, they don't need government because anything the government expropriates for services could be provided by the market. No, you are the dumbest. It is very evident that you aren't equipped for any sort of debate of anything. Really, you are idiotic when responding to anything. It is sad really. Please, show me where I specifically said that McDonald's or Google should build roads. I said that private construction companies to finance and build roads, highways and bridges. Who is going to pay for them? The private companies pay financed by loans from private banks. No war was declared in Pakistan, it must be declared by Congress, the last was World War II. CNN a joke. Like all of your sources. CNN is nothing but a media extension of government propagada. Just because iamdavidh disagrees with the Blaze or any of my sources, apparently, it is a joke because he disagrees, which is expected from someone who only believes in the ESTABLISHMENT. First, there are no monopolies in the insurance industry. Second, just so you claim it as a fact, doesn't mean it is a fact. It is far from that. Side: YES
|