• 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!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

I've already given my summation. It's based on the theory of res ipsa loquitor -- the thing speaks for itself.

An Independent often will have conservative views on certain issues and liberal views on other issues. That is often one of the reasons that they consider themselves Independent. So just because you think he is a Republican because of his conservative views on this issue that does not mean that he is a Republican. Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit more about Arbo before claiming that he is something. IE You don't know jack about him so you really should stop making claims about him.
 
An Independent often will have conservative views on certain issues and liberal views on other issues. That is often one of the reasons that they consider themselves Independent. So just because you think he is a Republican because of his conservative views on this issue that does not mean that he is a Republican. Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit more about Arbo before claiming that he is something. IE You don't know jack about him so you really should stop making claims about him.

That sounds like everyone. Even democrats and republicans. We all lean differently on different issues.
 
That sounds like everyone. Even democrats and republicans. We all lean differently on different issues.

Like I said, its just one of the reasons. I know that I myself can't stand either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party and would rather be shot than want to be considered as one of them. Which is another reason, at least for me. Others may have their own ideas on why they're Independents.
 
Like I said, its just one of the reasons. I know that I myself can't stand either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party and would rather be shot than want to be considered as one of them. Which is another reason, at least for me. Others may have their own ideas on why they're Independents.


It is true I don't put too much stock in the parties. However, even independents tend to vote for one more than the other. And on occasion those who belong to one vote for another (like me voting for Grassly).
 
Like I said, its just one of the reasons. I know that I myself can't stand either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party and would rather be shot than want to be considered as one of them. Which is another reason, at least for me. Others may have their own ideas on why they're Independents.

I am much in the same position as you. Voting comes down to the lesser of two evils (when it comes to president), and who controls, or is more likely to control the legislative branch. One party control, be it (R) or (D), is generally never a good thing. Yeah, people talk about gridlock when power is shared, my view is gridlock is a damn fine thing. See, if they can't 'accomplish' anything, we are usually better off, because most of what they 'accomplish' usually turns out to be a bad idea, bad legislation, bad for the country.

Next to politicians, party line voters are the worst thing to befall this country. But what politicians want is the party line voter, they want the two sides going at each other with their closed minds, because that keeps the attention off the politicians when they put their hands in the cookie jar.

And like you stated, views on issues, depend on the issue.

For this one in particular, the mandate, I have to come down on the side of the commerce clause as it was written and intended, as well as the reality that the country was founded with the idea of a limited federal government. To keep the mandate in place goes against all of that.
 
Last edited:
All these things came about for a reason, and too often we forget the history that led to it. Government didn't jump up and just decide to do things for no reason. People, group like the AMA, and events all worked together to lead us in this direction.

Doesn't change the fact that it increases the cost of these services

This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes
 
Doesn't change the fact that it increases the cost of these services

This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes

Maybe, but the reasons that brought us here means that won't change. Knowing the history can help inform us on where to go next.
 
The entire process is controlled by the AMA, from deciding which schools qualify for accreditation, were a person can conduct clinicals, how long they last, and what a doctor or non doctor can/can't do. The problem is not requiring a license, but what's required to even apply for that license and barring non doctors from doing "doctors" work. Why can't there be a, eye throat and ear doctor that doesn't have to go through 8+ years of schooling? Why are doctors the only ones allowed to do test for strept, set bones etc?


This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes

Human health is a very delicate and intimate matter that requires the utmost skill and confidence. Making it very difficult to be a doctor and to set up clinics etc is one of the best regulations we have for insuring our safety. Loosening those restraints adds up to fraud and trouble.
 
Human health is a very delicate and intimate matter that requires the utmost skill and confidence. Making it very difficult to be a doctor and to set up clinics etc is one of the best regulations we have for insuring our safety. Loosening those restraints adds up to fraud and trouble.

There are piratical reforms that would reduce the cost of entry and this the choosy of health care without endangering peoples' lives and ive already listed some. Expanding the role of nurse practitioners, midwifery, and technical care (procedures that don't require full doctor training such as ear eye and throat doctors and general check UPS such as throat swabing) would do wonders to reduce cost. Then there is allowing doctors trained overseas to practice in the us with minimal barrier of entry (a test). Then we can expand the schools qualified to train doctors (is artificially restrained by the AMA). There's more but that would help immensely

This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes
 
Allowing the government to mandate that you, an individual, HAS to buy something is "freedom and liberty"????? What world do you friggen live in? I would rather pay higher taxes than be forced to give any private buisness my money if I do not want to.

So whats next? Health gyms? Have to buy X amount of spinach?
LOL. Individual payer is you paying for what you want to buy while I pay for what I want to buy. It is the central tenet of freedom. :)
 
If you don't buy a car and need to go someplace you should expect to walk. In the case of health insurance, you should be prepared to die to defend your Right to not own it. Of course, if you're just crippled for life you will continue to be a drain on society :( because I doubt you'd be willing to embrace seppuku.
Yes. If you do not take care of your needs why should I be forced to? If the gene pool is shallow on the end you occupy why should I be forced to take care of you? What gives you a greater moral claim on the things I create than I have?

Or do you believe that you are not just a common thief as long as you get the government to take from me by force that which you are unable or unwilling to try to take?
 
You're full of it....You'd no more buy a car for a poor person, then the man on the moon....lol....No, what you really want is for the rest of us to be forced to buy that car, while you are exempted...Now that is reality...Socialism is for the people, NOT the Socialist.


j-mac
Those with undisclosed leans then to have the most to hide. This one is as red as they get. He and all like him must be completely defeated, lest they breed.
 
:lamo :lamo Exempted? :lamo :lamo

Man, it's no wonder it seems like Conservatives can't think logically! They can't see any other world than their own little bubble so they never have all the facts. I shouldn't laugh, though, it's really kinda' sad.



Ed:
If I ever thought you were full of **** you just confirmed it. LOL!
Did you just fart?
 
And again, no where did I say only one side uses the politics of fear. I said it works. And when we hear the death panle nonsense and the socialist/communist/facist nonsense, it is clear your side understands this as well as any.
Are you saying that the death panels will not exist? Or is your argument that they are not yet needed so they won't exist until the monster known as Obamacare is fully implemented? How did government health care work for the Soviet Union? That is the example we should look to as we embrace the communistic model. Under Communism ones politics and status drove the quality of one's health care. Will it be any different here?

Why do you believe it is nonsense? It is happening before our eyes.
 
The unencumbered market never works, as we can see by today’s economic reality.
How then, do you explain the United States? Unencumbered means without the distortions that governments bring to the markets when they go beyond simple police powers.

The unencumbered health care market has whittled down to seven primary companies, which of course equal less choice and fixed gouging prices creating the problem we have with health care today. So, no, leaving the market to decide healthcare practices and value is not a good idea.
Do you believe today's market, twisted and contorted by massive government interference is unencumbered?

And you close by saying “my desire for socialism is strong”??? And then you further insult the principal of freedom and try and weave that principal into health care???

I’m afraid your post doesn’t say anything at all with respect to this subject.
Are you denying your socialist tendency?
How can anyone be free who depends on the government for health care?
 
Nowhere do I sugest that health care has been in a free market; I said, "the unencumbered market never works". The unecumbered health care market (meaning: left to its own devices) has whittled down choice to only seven parent companies: less choices, fixed pricing and prices that prevent the average person from affording good polices. And all that's quite true. I suggest that you do some research into monopolies and then reply.
Sigh. Students.

Do you believe it is possible to appear wise without taking any effort to achieve wisdom?
 
Are you saying that the death panels will not exist? Or is your argument that they are not yet needed so they won't exist until the monster known as Obamacare is fully implemented? How did government health care work for the Soviet Union? That is the example we should look to as we embrace the communistic model. Under Communism ones politics and status drove the quality of one's health care. Will it be any different here?

Why do you believe it is nonsense? It is happening before our eyes.

My government insurance (disability) has worked pretty well for me. As a matter of fact I'm now looking forward to working again via a program for the disabled.
 
I don't know why hospitals would be prevented from giving out bonuses. Then again, I don't know why we have so few new doctors each year, either - and apparently a large number of residency positions are funded through Medicare. So what happens if government pulls out of healthcare completely? Who picks up the bill for all those residency positions that Medicare is paying now? The AMA is screaming we need more doctors, which means more residents, but if we stop paying for the residents then where are we?
WARNING! Socialist, or Statist, at work.

Of course, no one has an answer to the "Idiosyncrasies of payment" problem. Sure you can shop around for some things but we're still stuck paying for the uninsured if they have an accident or something. Or we possibly leave them to die while they wait for care at a government facility. You can't have it both ways. To avoid an untimely death someone has to pay and if it's not the patient then it has to be US.
WARNING! Socialist, or Statist, at work.

Ed:
I did forget to add in the last few posts - I do NOT believe in a Cadillac in every driveway. But I do still think we need basic UHC, what most of us have to deal with year to year, not the $800k heart transplant.
WARNING! Socialist, or Statist, at work. And he doesn't even realize it.
 
LOL. Individual payer is you paying for what you want to buy while I pay for what I want to buy. It is the central tenet of freedom. :)

so is "promoting the general welfare". so I guess that means you pay for what others want too. Healthcare is a central tenet of freedom too, it's right in the preamble.. If you like to pay more for less because you feel better about it, you got your wish. Remember though along with the poor you will be paying for young people who could afford insurance but choose that flat screen instead. Plus that 15 to 30% kickback to the insurer. It adds up. Are you sure you can afford it?
 
Last edited:
Yes. If you do not take care of your needs why should I be forced to? If the gene pool is shallow on the end you occupy why should I be forced to take care of you? What gives you a greater moral claim on the things I create than I have?

Or do you believe that you are not just a common thief as long as you get the government to take from me by force that which you are unable or unwilling to try to take?
You should look at my posts more closely. Unlike many I'm very flexable about this situation. If you don't want to buy health insurance then don't. But at the same time, don't expect to steal MY health dollars that I've been paying for years because you have an accident or get sick and now need help from a system you didn't help to build. It's as simple as that. Some people want the choice to not invest in the system then expect it to literally save their ass when they need it. Screw that!

If you want out, you're more than welcome to leave - and don't come back because I don't want to hear you whining and crying when you're dying of injuries, cancer, or heart disease.
 
WARNING! Socialist, or Statist, at work. And he doesn't even realize it.
WARNING: Creationist!
Scientific and historic evidence should be checked at the door when attempting to engage in conversation!
 
But nearly everyone will use healthcare sooner or later.
 
Federally-funded health centers care for you, even if you have no health insurance. You pay what you can afford, based on your income. Health centers provide

1. checkups when you're well
2. treatment when you're sick
3. complete care when you're pregnant
4. immunizations and checkups for your children
5. dental care and prescription drugs for your family
6. mental health and substance abuse care if you need it

Health centers are in most cities and many rural areas. Type in your address and click the 'Find Health Centers' button to find health centers near you.

HRSA - Find a Health Center - Search Page

There are many State and County programs you can find on line as well.

Now when you take away all the people with access to these Health Care programs, how many actually have no access.

The clinics aren't as convenient, you may have to wait in line. But, Health Care is out there for those without insurance. I am currently without health insurance and use my counties health care system for only $10 more than my old insurance co-pay.
 
There are piratical reforms that would reduce the cost of entry and this the choosy of health care without endangering peoples' lives and ive already listed some. Expanding the role of nurse practitioners, midwifery, and technical care (procedures that don't require full doctor training such as ear eye and throat doctors and general check UPS such as throat swabing) would do wonders to reduce cost. Then there is allowing doctors trained overseas to practice in the us with minimal barrier of entry (a test). Then we can expand the schools qualified to train doctors (is artificially restrained by the AMA). There's more but that would help immensely

This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes

I agree with some of what you're saying, however
and technical care (procedures that don't require full doctor training such as ear eye and throat doctors and general check UPS such as throat swabing) would do wonders to reduce cost.
Health exams as such do go on at colleges, but should not be the practice of everyday health. There are many nurse pratisioners etc that can set bones, deliver babies and things like that who have been practicing for a number of years and are a good choice for those who desire a less formal participation, but to lower the standards by which medicine operates is disaster waiting to happen.

You're trying to lower the participation of federal and state government and we have seen over and over again that less regulation only increses hardship for others.
 
Back
Top Bottom