• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law

I have no idea what your position is but we have many here and I see where those protesting on Wall Street have said that if they go to college everyone should have to cover it.
Click to expand...
My view is college should be based on ability not ability to pay. I personally think we're handicapping our future economy as prices rise and a lot of people either are outpriced by the new costs or have to go into lifelong debt to pay. I don't think we should just send every Tom,Dick, and Harry to school. I do think we're getting to a situation where potentially based on rising prices all over the country that the majority of Americans will not be able to afford an education. This of course is happening as our competitors send more and more people to college. Why is a rich, smart country like the US doing everything opposite of what countries like China, India, S. Korea, Europe are doing? It's like we're purposely trying to errode our competitiveness.

Nobody is still argueing that Obamacare is going to lower costs. Any curtailment of costs will have to include tort reform which the Republicans tried to get included in Obamacare but were rebuffed.
Click to expand...

I is still argued...Book Excerpt: How The Individual Health Insurance Mandate Will Work - Kaiser Health News
There are problems of course, one being that the penalty may just be cheap enough to pay instead of purchasing insurance. The penalty should always be higher than the cost of the lowest insurance plan for a less than 30 year old. They should also have a 5 year waiver stating they waive the protections in the plan for "pre-existing conditions".

It's kind of needed...we are facing a situation where healthcare costs are rising at huge rates, causing premiums to go up, and people that are healthy are making the economical decision to not get healthcare since the rates are rising therefore causing rates to rise even more since the risk pool is smaller and is more high risk.
 
You either support the right to make decisions regarding your personal life, or you don't.
Click to expand...

Unless....it effects other individuals, which not having insurance and depending on others to foot the bill does. Do I think you have a "choice" to keep an acid pool in your back yard with no fence that kids can go jump into? No. Doesnt' mean I don't believe in personal choice. There's also the fact we don't all live on islands and our choices can effect others.

Of course you do - more power for the government means less power for the people - all in the name of expanding the Dem voter base.
Click to expand...
You do know that it's much cheaper right? The largest cost for employers is to provide health insurance.....if you want to lower the cost of employing Americans then that's the biggest bang for your buck. We spend the highest proportion of our GDP on healthcare in the world...and it's growing. You're attributing an idea to me based purely on some Glenn Beck/Limbaugh style strawman of a Liberal. You do know people can come to reasoned opinion that are different than your own?
 
iliveonramen said:
It's kind of needed...we are facing a situation where healthcare costs are rising at huge rates, causing premiums to go up, and people that are healthy are making the economical decision to not get healthcare since the rates are rising therefore causing rates to rise even more since the risk pool is smaller and is more high risk.
Click to expand...
Rising costs are a result of the insulation of those who receive the goods and services from the cost of those goods and services.

Eliminate insurance. This forces people to consider what health care they -really- need and then shop around for it; this forces health care providers to compete with one another both in terms of the cost of their service and quality of same.

-This- will reduce costs and increase quality.
 
iliveonramen said:
Unless....it effects other individuals,
Click to expand...
The choice to pay for one's health care costs out of pocket - the choice you want to deny to everyone - affects no one else.
:shrug:

You do know that it's much cheaper right?
Click to expand...
This does nothing to negate what I said - you can rationalize your support for bigger government and less power in the hands of the people however you want - you're still arguing for bigger government and less power for the people.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
The choice to pay for one's health care costs out of pocket - the choice you want to deny to everyone - affects no one else.
Click to expand...

It affects all of us when someone requires emergency care that they can't afford. In that case, the taxpayers have to pay.


This does nothing to negate what I said - you can rationalize your support for bigger government and less power in the hands of the people however you want - you're still arguing for bigger government and less power for the people.
Click to expand...

This is nothing more than a slogan that even the rightwing does not believe in. They just whine about big govt when they don't like a policy. When they like the policy (banning abortion, prohibiting SSM, PATRIOT Act, etc) they are all for Big Govt telling people what they can and can't do
 
If I force everyone on my block to buy a case of wine each, I can get a good bulk discount on that wine, and then we can all have wine at a much cheaper rate. If you don't want the wine, that's fine, I'll take your share, but you still have to pay, otherwise the rest of us don't get the wine as cheaply.

That is this healthcare bill in a nutshell.
 
KevinKohler said:
If I force everyone on my block to buy a case of wine each, I can get a good bulk discount on that wine, and then we can all have wine at a much cheaper rate. If you don't want the wine, that's fine, I'll take your share, but you still have to pay, otherwise the rest of us don't get the wine as cheaply.

That is this healthcare bill in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

People don't need wine to live (unless they're from France)
 
KevinKohler said:
If I force everyone on my block to buy a case of wine each, I can get a good bulk discount on that wine, and then we can all have wine at a much cheaper rate. If you don't want the wine, that's fine, I'll take your share, but you still have to pay, otherwise the rest of us don't get the wine as cheaply.
That is this healthcare bill in a nutshell.
Click to expand...
Dont forget that if you choose to not buy the case of wine, the money will be taken from you anyway.
 
Rising costs are a result of the insulation of those who receive the goods and services from the cost of those goods and services.

Eliminate insurance. This forces people to consider what health care they -really- need and then shop around for it; this forces health care providers to compete with one another both in terms of the cost of their service and quality of same.

-This- will reduce costs and increase quality
Click to expand...

I have this debate with my brother, he doesn't have your viewpoint, I think it's wrong that most American can afford out of pocket stuff they really NEED but his view is more of a catastrophic insurance plan for cancer or other 30k plus costs as well as a tax sheltered savings plan for visits which would have the same effect...you pay out of pocket for health care unless you get one of those massive ordeals that cost the same amount of say a house.

I disagree on one major issue, is our goal to provide health insurance to a majority of Americans or not?
Another would be....is healthcare really a good similar to say buying an IPOD? I mean, first of all, if a doctor tells you you need an MRI Americans can not make an informed decision if they need one or not. It's like seeing a mechanic for a lot of people which is like 1/10000000 as specialized or technical. Another is, can you forgo or really get a substitute? There's also the idea that there's really not much of a choice. if you're going to an emergency room visit you don't necessarily have the ability to shop around and make a decision on which of 2 hosptials in a city to go to .

Now for day to day care, yes, people could price and compare. I disagree that the most costly parts of medical care are conducive to this laissez faire free market option where buyers are informed, have subsitutes and plenty of competitors to choose from.
 
So then things people need to live should have their costs be socialized? Define what exactly we NEED to live, sir? Food, air, water, yes. Those are the things we NEED to live, as in, without, we ALL DIE, sick OR healthy. And only ONE of those things is free...for now. Everything else is just to make living more livable.
 
iliveonramen said:
I have this debate with my brother, he doesn't have your viewpoint
Click to expand...
So...?

I think it's wrong that most American can afford out of pocket stuff they really NEED...
Click to expand...
Why?

I disagree on one major issue, is our goal to provide health insurance to a majority of Americans or not?
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. "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.

Another would be....is healthcare really a good similar to say buying an IPOD?
Click to expand...
Goods and services are goods and services; all are subject to market forces.
:shrug:
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
The rightwingers are all for mandates, except when they're against them (like when a Dem is president)

The rightwing has no principles. All they have is a bunch of slogans that they repeat when convenient, and they throw their "principles" under the bus when they become inconvenient
Click to expand...

Is anyone else here tired of these mindless generalizations?
 
The choice to pay for one's health care costs out of pocket - the choice you want to deny to everyone - affects no one else.
Click to expand...
What are we talking here, emergency room visits, expensive care or day to day check ups. I disagree with you that anybody is making the choice for "paying out of pocket" for anything besides a checkup. This idea that "paying out of pocket" is realistic for the services that are costing the most (no checkups are not the cost drivers) for most Americans is false.

This does nothing to negate what I said - you can rationalize your support for bigger government and less power in the hands of the people however you want - you're still arguing for bigger government and less power for the people.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, this idea that you can forgo paying for a service and depend on others is nothing other than being a free rider and is basically an argument of no government. You're same reasoning, people should have a choice to not pay taxes. Hey, drive on the roads, send your kids to public education, all in the name of "choice".
 
KevinKohler said:
So then things people need to live should have their costs be socialized? Define what exactly we NEED to live, sir? Food, air, water, yes. Those are the things we NEED to live, as in, without, we ALL DIE, sick OR healthy. And only ONE of those things is free...for now. Everything else is just to make living more livable.
Click to expand...

Actually, all of the things you mentioned are partially socialized. There is govt subsidies for clear air, water, food, and yes, health care
 
You copied and pasted one sentence out of paragraphs Pzkf....and completely ignored the rest of the paragraphs. For example...I outlined where all goods and services are not equal...I'm not going to repeat what I wrote.
 
KevinKohler said:
So then things people need to live should have their costs be socialized? Define what exactly we NEED to live, sir? Food, air, water, yes. Those are the things we NEED to live, as in, without, we ALL DIE, sick OR healthy. And only ONE of those things is free...for now. Everything else is just to make living more livable.
Click to expand...
The argument is that everyone has a right to health care, and because of this, everyone is entitled to the means to exercise that right.
This argument is, of course, rather selective as to which -other- rights it applies.
 
iliveonramen said:
You copied and pasted one sentence out of paragraphs Pzkf....and completely ignored the rest of the paragraphs. For example...I outlined where all goods and services are not equal...I'm not going to repeat what I wrote.
Click to expand...
I only address what is necessary to address and cull the fluff - and in the case of your example, above, I -did- address it.

Never mind the irony found in the fact that -you- didnt address what -I- said.
 
Last edited:
iliveonramen said:
What are we talking here, emergency room visits, expensive care or day to day check ups
Click to expand...
No - we're talking about taking away the choice to pay for health care expenses out-of-pocket.
You cannot deny that you support taking away that choice, and that choice has no effect on anyone else.
Why do you want to take away the right to make a choice that affects no one other than the pweron who makes it?

I'm sorry, this idea that you can forgo paying for a service and depend on others is nothing other than being a free rider and is basically an argument of no government.
Click to expand...
THis is a both a non-sequitur and red herring rolled all into one line. Well done.
My statement still stands.
 
No - we're talking about taking away the choice to pay for health care expenses out-of-pocket.
You cannot deny that you support taking away that choice, and that choice has no effect on anyone else.
Click to expand...
How so.....if someone without insurance gets in a car wreck, needs intensive care and the bill is 40k and they make say 20k and can't afford it...who pays....

THis is a both a non-sequitur and red herring rolled all into one line. Well done.
My statement still stands.
Click to expand...

Because your idea of choice is self serving. You can still not purchase insurance, instead you would have to pay a penalty. You still have a choice. Please define what is appropriate for having a "choice". What limitations are there?
 
iliveonramen said:
How so....?
Click to expand...
What do you mean "how so"? It's the issue -I- brought up regarding -you- wanting to take away choices.
If you have excercised your choice to pay for your medical expenses out of pocket and you don't have the money to pay for them, you don't receive the goods and services. Simple, really.

Because your idea of choice is self serving. You can still not purchase insurance, instead you would have to pay a penalty.
Click to expand...
Why should I pay a penalty when I incur no cost and create no burden?
 
Why should I pay a penalty when I incur no cost and create no burden?
Click to expand...

Since you pick and choose....what happens if someone is in a car wreck and needs intensive care that they cannot afford....who pays. Is there a burden to others?
 
iliveonramen said:
You didn't address anything. You just stated "It is because I said it is".
Click to expand...
No.. I explained my statement. You have not countered it, nor addressed anything else in my post.
Why don't you go do that.
 
iliveonramen said:
Since you pick and choose....what happens if someone is in a car wreck and needs intensive care that they cannot afford....who pays. Is there a burden to others?
Click to expand...
You apparently didnt read the first part of my post, as evidenced by the fact that you asked your question.
Allow me to repeat myself:

What do you mean "how so"? It's the issue -I- brought up regarding -you- wanting to take away choices.
If you have excercised your choice to pay for your medical expenses out of pocket and you don't have the money to pay for them, you don't receive the goods and services. Simple, really.

Now then:
Why should I pay a penalty when I incur no cost and create no burden?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom