Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 118

Thread: White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law

  1. #81
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,207

    Re: White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law

    In the terms you;re trying to use, this is rrelevant to the issue.

    Market forces apply in all cases - regardless of the good/service, you look for the best cost and the best quality. In the case of the heart valve, you're subtituting someone who charges too much or does inferior work for soemone who doesn't. Eliminating insurance brings competition; competition, subsitituion, informed consumers are the bedrocks of a good effective market system.
    I'm specifically pointing to price elasticty and high barrier for entry regarding health services. Eliminating insurance does nothing to fix those issues.

    "We" have no responsibility whatsoever to make sure that anyone has anything.
    You, personally, may think you have a moral responsibility to do so, but you have an outlet for that, and you have no standing whatsoever to impose that morality on others.
    I'm arguing from the perspective that uses the system we currently have...which provides emergency care to anyone no matter their ability to pay. Yes, if we had a system where that wasn't the case then the incentive of recieving not care would be sufficient...there would be no need for a mandate.

  2. #82
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    I'm specifically pointing to price elasticty and high barrier for entry regarding health services. Eliminating insurance does nothing to fix those issues.
    Sure it does. People wont be able to pay the high prices we see today, so the prices will drop to the point where people can pay.

    I'm arguing from the perspective that uses the system we currently have...which provides emergency care to anyone no matter their ability to pay. Yes, if we had a system where that wasn't the case then the incentive of recieving not care would be sufficient...there would be no need for a mandate
    .
    This doesnt address what I said. Please read what I said and try again.

  3. #83
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,207

    Re: White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law

    This doesnt address the question.
    Why should -I- pay a penalty when -I- incur no cost and -I- create no burden?
    How am -I- responsible for the costs/burdens created by -other- people?
    Your arguement is based on A) an alternate reality where people are not treated if they can't afford and choose not to purchase insurance or B) when faced or life or death choose death on principle of not receiving services they refuse to pay for.

    As of now A is not relevant and B is pretty ficticious.

  4. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Your arguement is based on A) an alternate reality where people are not treated if they can't afford and choose not to purchase insurance
    False. I presented the fact that you happily seek to take away the choice to pay for medical expenses out of pocket, and only if the person could pay for them.
    Nothing about what I said in any way supposes that people are not treated if they cannot afford it.

    B) when faced or life or death choose death on principle of not receiving services they refuse to pay for.
    Everyone has this choice; no one is forced to accept medical treatment.
    Thus, the choice certainly exists; the fact thay you find it unlikely is meaningless.

    As of now A is not relevant and B is pretty ficticious.
    Point is that you seek to remove the choice and, one way or the other, make me responsible for the costs of others.

    Nothing you have presented here assresses the questions I put to you.
    So, I will ask AGAIN:

    Why should -I- pay a penalty when -I- incur no cost and -I- create no burden?
    How am -I- responsible for the costs/burdens created by -other- people?

  5. #85
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,207

    Re: White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law

    Everyone has this choice; no one is forced to accept medical treatment.
    Thus, the choice certainly exists; the fact thay you find it unlikely is meaningless
    I'm not going to argue over this ridiculous scenario until you can provide some kind of justificat (numbers would be nice) showing that people forgo medical care when they don't pay insurance.

  6. #86
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,207

    Re: White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law

    Sure it does. People wont be able to pay the high prices we see today, so the prices will drop to the point where people can pay.
    You are aware supply and demand are not the only drivers for prices correct? If a good (cancer treatment) is not affordable by many people then hospitals would no longer provide it, not drop the prices to where they would receive a loss.

  7. #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    I'm not going to argue over this ridiculous scenario until you can provide some kind of justificat (numbers would be nice) showing that people forgo medical care when they don't pay insurance.
    Irrelevant to the issue of choice and your desire to take it away when doing so harms no one - never mind the fact that any rarity to that effect only illustrates the imbecility of removing that choice.

    You -still- need to explain...
    ...why I should not be able to make a choice that harms no one
    ...why I should pay a penalty when I incur no cost and I create no burden
    ...how I am responsible for the costs/burdens created by other people

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    You are aware supply and demand are not the only drivers for prices correct?
    Supply/demand are the Mississippi river; the 'drivers'; you suggest are a bucket of water.

  9. #89
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,207

    Re: White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law

    Irrelevant to the issue of choice and your desire to take it away when doing so harms no one - never mind the fact that any rarity to that effect only illustrates the imbecility of removing that choice.
    How is it irrelevant? Correct me if I'm wrong......---->moral hazard of person not buying insurance and still recieving care is the reason for the mandate. You mention the fact that it removes choice, "how can the party of choice take away someone's choice" was your quote. I mention the fact taking away choice when it affects others is clearly established practice. You say that it doesn't affect others. I say that it does. You mention what about your choice to forgo paying for insurance then forgoing receiving care you didn't pay for. I said that's a ridiculous statement because people never make that choice.

    I'm not going to argue about this "choice" which no one seems to make.

  10. #90
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,207

    Re: White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law

    Supply/demand are the Mississippi river; the 'drivers'; you suggest are a bucket of water.
    You do know decresed demand can lead to decreased supply as well...i.e. if only 100,000 individuals can afford cancer treatment then only a handful of cancer treatments will exist.

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •