If you had to choose a program to ensure your children's future

[Progservative_n_SC]

which would you make:

1) Guaranteed access to health care, be it Public Option, Single Payer, or some other program

2) A program that's only goal was to eliminate the national debt with a mandate that would force the government to live within it's means using a progressive income tax that was fair to all involved

As much as I think health care provides a good foundation to a healthy populace, getting out of crippling debt to foreign governments and enacting fairer trade agreements versus free trade which sends our wealth and technology to the lowest bidder would help insure the next generation opportunity for prosperity.

Not trying to make any straw man arguments or any flame wars. Just curious about the view of how our skyrocketing debt affects opinions and what some would sacrifice for one stance or the other.

PS - I know they are not mutually exclusive and we can have both if we tried but just ask yourself what is most important

[Oregone]

1. Single-Payer

"force the government to live within it's means" means cutting more social services from the budget, and that doesn't ensure any future for tomorrow's children. Thats the type of stuff people will take the "hatchet" to, rather than corporate subsidies, tax-cuts, and the defense budget

[Progservative_n_SC]

3. I see your point on that

Lets say that 'living within means' is simply maintaing a balanced budget with regards to revenue at current expenditures (factoring in increased spending needs) and regulation on how much debt can be generated in a fiscal period?

I guess I am trying to see at what point do we get a handle on the debt and how do we avoid returning to deficits?

[Oregone]

5. But that will sink your boat in a recession

Deficit spending is sometimes necessary. Right-wingers essentially drool at opportunities to cut services or avoid Keynesian stimulus. I don't know...seems like its a recipe for disaster.

Id rather more simply see all trade agreements revoked in favor of an intelligent and fair tariff system (that subsidizes training and industry to compete), but, eh, whatever

[Pithlet]

2. Number one, no question. n/t

[countingbluecars]

4. # 2 sounds good but

meanwhile people die. Also, done right, controlling health care costs should lower the debt.

[Oregone]

6. Lower debt AND make industry more competitive internationally

[notesdev]

7. The next generation can go fuck itself

at least that seems to be the prevailing attitude when people support spending without asking where the money is coming from. We'll be dead by the time it all defaults, right? Our children can suffer as slaves in a corporate police state, but we will have our health care*!

















*at least until China stops lending us money

[napi21]

8. I'm not worried about the ND. When most people get back to work and

businesses are sable again, the ND will come down mainly because so many are back to work and paying taxes again.

I would like to see a socialist HC system similar to what they have in the other westernized countries of the world, but I know I will NEVER see that in my lifetime, and I doubt my children will either! Unless the majority of the American people recognize that capitolism is not their friend, things won't materially change, and hoping for that is futile!

[Tejas]

10. Back to work doing what?

Our manufacturing base (exports) has slipped away too far, too many are now working in a service industry selling foreign products (imports) or are working at Micky D's.

[Oregone]

11. Do you believe lowering the debt (which increases dollar's value) will help manufacturing?

Id think tariffs and "free trade" are more relevant to that problem than a prohibiting debt

[Tejas]

12. Beg your pardon, did you have an answer to my question? nt

[Juche]

9. #2, assuming it was done properly

Trying to tackle the debt during a recession is a terrible idea. But doing it during boom times will work.

On another note, by the time Clinton left office the debt was under 6 trillion and was on track to be eliminated by 2012. I think it actually caused some economists to worry. I forget their reasoning though.

But inefficiencies in our health care system is partly why our debt is so big and why it'll get bigger in the future. Unfunded medicare mandates are going to cost tens of trillions.

Meaningful health reform that covers everyone will cut the debt. Its not either/or. However if it was either/or, I'd probably pick the debt just so we could save the interest payments ($400 billion a year) and not be subjugated to China because they loan us money.

[LWolf]

13. Single payer.

My grandson is only alive today because my state's health plan paid for his life-saving open heart surgery.

I want every single person in the nation to be able to get the care they need, when they need it, without being turned away because of lack of health insurance or $$$.

I had to pay for my 32 yo son's trip to urgent care yesterday; payment at time of service. He's unemployed (laid off after 12 years) and uninsured, and scraping by on unemployment. He didn't have enough to pay it. He has a staff infection with painful boils erupting in uncomfortable places. It really couldn't wait.

Now my already thin budget is going to be hard-pressed to make it until Feb. 1, when I get MY next check.

What is most important? Being able to get the care we need to stay healthy and alive.