• 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!

Obama pulls plug on part of health overhaul law

Why would government tell me I can not buy such a policy?

Defend that.
 
Reg said:
Why would government tell me I can not buy such a policy?

Defend that.
Click to expand...

Why would I defend something you can't even prove happens?
 
If I did not want to buy a health insurance policy at all, why would government demand that I do?

Defend that.
 
Reg said:
If I did not want to buy a health insurance policy at all, why would government demand that I do?

Defend that.
Click to expand...

because all of us pay for you when you guess wrong and can't pay for it. Much like happens with auto insurance, we pick up the tab for your irresponsibility. Unless we are willing to let you die without care, and we're not, your cost will be passsed on to others if your not covered and can't pay for it. you're actually arguing for irresponibility.
 
Auto insurance is to protect you from my car hurting you or damaging your car.

Does government foster responsibility? What is the data to support that?
 
Reg said:
Auto insurance is to protect you from my car hurting you or damaging your car.

Does government foster responsibility? What is the data to support that?
Click to expand...

Health insurance is to prevent you from making us pay for you. Very similar to auto insurance in that way.

Requiring you to be responible does more to foster responible behavior than not doing so. That's just simple logic. And we have auto insurance as a model to support this.
 
Last edited:
Auto insurance is intended to mitigate damage or injury to others you may cause while driving. You don't have to buy auto insurance unless you drive.

So we've moved beyond the claim that government is not gaming the health insurance market to saying that government "should" game the health insurance market.

What's the competence of government making people responsible? Subsidized housing? Food assistance?
 
Health insurance, in a nut shell, is a collective fund, where in the majority of healthy people who enter the pool don't withdraw from the fund, and the unhealthy minority who enter do. In simple english, the healthy pay for the problems of the unhealthy, on the premise that the healthy might one day be unhealthy with problems that need paying for. Text book socialism. Don't get me wrong, and don't automatically attach a negative stigma to that word...socialism has it's uses, very valuable uses.

BUT. BUT!

When entering into that program is no longer a choice...but enforced by law, then we have a problem, because then it's no longer just socialism, it's fascism. No one tells me who I have to be a customer to.

This isn't a health care bill, it's a health INSURANCE bill. And that's where it goes wrong, imo.
 
Reg said:
Auto insurance is intended to mitigate damage or injury to others you may cause while driving. You don't have to buy auto insurance unless you drive.

So we've moved beyond the claim that government is not gaming the health insurance market to saying that government "should" game the health insurance market.

What's the competence of government making people responsible? Subsidized housing? Food assistance?
Click to expand...

No one said they should "game" it. Like auto insurance, which is to midigate the damage cause to others, health insurance midgates the damage caused to others by having to pay for their care. now, read that slowly. I want to make sure you see it this time. If you guess wrong, get injured or ill and have need you can't pay for, others ahve to pay for you.

Now, while you can choose not to drive, it is really impossible to choose not to be injured or ill. **** happens and we really can't prevent all possibilities. So, opting out is much more difficult. And any one who actually ahs a enough money to opt out, likely already ahs insurance because they are not so stupid as to go without.

I don't have to pay for you housing if you refuse to live in a house. I don't have to pay for you food if you choose not to eat.
 
How you pay for your health care is betwen you and your provider.
 
Reg said:
How you pay for your health care is betwen you and your provider.
Click to expand...

Which has what to do with what I said? if you are not insured, the likelihood is you won't be paying. We all will be paying for you one way or another.
 
That's between you and your provider. Government changes nothing of that.
 
Reg said:
That's between you and your provider. Government changes nothing of that.
Click to expand...

No, if I'm unsured, it is between me and all those who will have to pay for me. Are you sure you're reading my responses?
 
If your provider already shifts those costs, then government adds nothing to the transaction.
 
Eh, actually...when someone turns up in ER, that hospital treats them, regardless of ability to pay. People getting emergency treatment and then NOT paying forces a hospital, as it would ANY business owner, to have to spread that cost around to the rest of the customers/patients. Or go out of business.

The counter point to that is, those unpaid for treatments only account for a very small percentage of the high and rising cost of health care. Regulation, and the monopolization the resulted from it, is the number one cause of high costs. If you've ever known a doctor or nurse, or anyone that works in the medical profession, they'll tell you about it....how a bed pan costs 100 bucks or more, because there is only one or two companies they are ALLOWED to purchase them from, or bandages and gauze, etc.
 
So is government going to stand in the doorway of the ER and tell you whether you can get care there or not?
 
Reg said:
If your provider already shifts those costs, then government adds nothing to the transaction.
Click to expand...

If it were truly between you and the provider, and you didn't have insurance, and failed a credit check, you wouldn't get treatment. And just imagine running a credit check on a guy dieing in ER, lol. Doctors aren't monsters, but something like you seem to support would force them to be, or to go out of business.
 
KevinKohler said:
Eh, actually...when someone turns up in ER, that hospital treats them, regardless of ability to pay. People getting emergency treatment and then NOT paying forces a hospital, as it would ANY business owner, to have to spread that cost around to the rest of the customers/patients. Or go out of business.

The counter point to that is, those unpaid for treatments only account for a very small percentage of the high and rising cost of health care. Regulation, and the monopolization the resulted from it, is the number one cause of high costs. If you've ever known a doctor or nurse, or anyone that works in the medical profession, they'll tell you about it....how a bed pan costs 100 bucks or more, because there is only one or two companies they are ALLOWED to purchase them from, or bandages and gauze, etc.
Click to expand...

I used to sell medical suppleis. They were rather free to choose who they bought things from. We would give then things for free to keep their business, but the charged a **** load for thos ethings, to make up for what they would not get paid.

There is a lot that adds to the cost of health care, but being unisured only means we'll all pay for those who guess wrong.
 
KevinKohler said:
If it were truly between you and the provider, and you didn't have insurance, and failed a credit check, you wouldn't get treatment. And just imagine running a credit check on a guy dieing in ER, lol. Doctors aren't monsters, but something like you seem to support would force them to be, or to go out of business.
Click to expand...

Not true. Health care providers give away a lot. They should not be indentured servants of government, however.
 
Reg said:
So is government going to stand in the doorway of the ER and tell you whether you can get care there or not?
Click to expand...

No. With the health insurance bill, they were going to enforce that all americans have health insurance, either through private, or public options. Since that portion is not going to go into effect, we're more or less right back to where we started...hospitals treat patients who are in need, and when those people can't pay, the hospital eats the cost...and then passes it on to the other, paying patients.
 
Reg said:
So is government going to stand in the doorway of the ER and tell you whether you can get care there or not?
Click to expand...

By law, they cannot refuse an emergency. This came about because of people dying when turned away.
 
The uninsured get health care. You want government to micromanage everyone's health care. The two have nothing to do with each other.
 
Reg said:
Not true. Health care providers give away a lot. They should not be indentured servants of government, however.
Click to expand...

No one isproposing they become indentured servants.
 
Reg said:
The uninsured get health care. You want government to micromanage everyone's health care. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Click to expand...

No one is micro managing. Just requiring insurance.
 
Re: Administration Dismantles Significant Piece of Obamacare

Reg said:
Translation, government doesn't know what the hell it's doing when it expands its presence in the health care or health insurance market.

This one had to be really bad on paper for Obama to junk it.
Click to expand...

Actually, CLASS would work IF there were a future date inwhich both Medicaid and Medicare would be phased out. Both programs are hinderences to the CLASS Act ever coming into form. Think about it...

CLASS is really no different than Medicare, but would provide similar health services as Medicaid. And just as with Social Security, one would only pay into CLASS if they were employed and remained so for atleast 90 days. At the 91-day point, the individual's CLASS enrollment would be re-evaluated. Not sure exactly what's to happen after that...whether premiums are to be repaid in full or if partial payments are administered. I'll have to read up on it more (if the curiousity hits me; since the program is now defunct makes no sense to study-up on it now).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom