• 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 calls for overhaul of U.S. health care system

So, then lets say we have it your way. So, doctors take the risk and people do not get medical attention that they cannot afford. How long before the number of doctors diminish due to lower wages versus debt taken in becoming a doctor and there is less access to healthcare.
The free market, through reduced demand, will eventually lower the cost of their education. Anyting else artificially inflates prices.

My main gripe with your argument is that in order for it to work, people must die as we wait for the market to adjust. That is profit over people and I can never see money over human life
And yet, you support plans that guarantee higher costs - in order to guarantee profit for hospitals and doctors - and force people to pay for the health care of others in order to create it.

As soon as you are no longer responsible for paying for your health care, health care costs go up. If you want to reduce health care costs, you increase free-market forces by reducing the number of people that do not directly pay for their health care.
 
Last edited:
I have issue with American Pharmaceuticals in a major way. Just as I don't blame canadians coming down here for good healthcare, I don't blame Americans for getting meds from Canada.

Americans do come up here for healthcare here, too. Really.
 
So, then lets say we have it your way. So, doctors take the risk and people do not get medical attention that they cannot afford. How long before the number of doctors diminish due to lower wages versus debt taken in becoming a doctor and there is less access to healthcare.

My main gripe with your argument is that in order for it to work, people must die as we wait for the market to adjust. That is profit over people and I can never see money over human life. I believe in capitalism, but it is a philosophy, not a law of the world as is death. No price should ever be placed on the lives of people in a civilized society so that people can profit on it.
Really? So you are saying that anything that someone makes a profit from should not be allowed if someone might die as a result?
 
Americans do come up here for healthcare here, too. Really.
I would like to see evidence of that if you mean anyone other than deadbeats. :roll:
 
Awesome question. The answer is no, because the Constitution does not bestow any rights. Surprise, the Bill of Rights is really a misnomer, because it merely declares limits on Congress with regard to certain inalienable, existing rights.

Thanks for that.


You should have said American public. Because it is recouped through increased healthcare prices, not taxes.

Right. So American pay the burden indirectly. Same thing, is it not?


The true answer is no. It may sounds heartless, but the the Constitution doesn't have a heart. That's up to the public at large.

I appreciate your honesty. As you know, I personally do believe it's a right, and there is no doubt that that is the fundamental question.
 
Really? So you are saying that anything that someone makes a profit from should not be allowed if someone might die as a result?

If in doing so lives are at a proven direct risk, then no. So, say a company makes higher profits by dumping toxic waste into a local water source and people will die from drinking the water, then the company has no right to pursue that avenue for profit.
 
The free market, through reduced demand, will eventually lower the cost of their education. Anyting else artificially inflates prices.


And yet, you support plans that guarantee higher costs - in order to guarantee profit for hospitals and doctors - and force people to pay for the health care of others in order to create it.

As soon as you are no longer responsible for paying for your health care, health care costs go up. If you want to reduce health care costs, you increase free-market forces by reducing the number of people that do not directly pay for their health care.

How does supporting stronger avenues for preventative medicine translate into third party payees? I do not think a certain level of third-party pickup is avoidable. But ultimately I feel that preventative medicine will reduce healthcare costs tremedously.
 
How does supporting stronger avenues for preventative medicine translate into third party payees?
How is the preventative medicine paid for?

I do not think a certain level of third-party pickup is avoidable.
Then you support unnecessaruly high health care costs.
 
Is it so bad? We have a hybrid system in most countries. You have UHC with hospitals and you can if you wish and afford it have private insurance too. All this put together is cheaper and more effective than the US system, almost every single statistic shows this.

And it creates a caste type system. Not only that but the private insurance will be more expensive because of government intervention.


The problem with this debate is simple. You have the radical right wingers who hate anything that is remotely connected to anything government unless it is something to do with guns. Because of this the only UHC systems that they want to mention are Canada's and the UK's. Now I dont know much about the Canadian system but I do know that the Uk's has been broken since Maggie Thatcher got her right wing hands on it, but sadly the UK system is STILL cheaper and more effective than the US. But that does not mean that UHC is a failure world wide.... quite on the contrary. Funny how they mention those 2 systems out of 20+ in the western world... Why not mention the Danish or the French? Or the German or Spanish? They are not perfect either, but they still cover all (including visiting Americans) and are cheaper by far than the US system and provide larger and better care.

Cheaper is not better. In health care time to services rendered in vastly more important than cost.

It doesn't matter if its cheaper when your dead from waiting.

UHC systems around the world have one thing in common. Everyone is covered period. If you have cancer, you get treatment. If you have a busted knee then you get treatment. If you have a heart problem then you get treatment. Sure it might take a bit of time, but you do get treatment and it will not cost you your house. At worst you will be required to pay some part of the treatment and if you cant, then you still will get the treatment.

And time is really important when you have cancer. If you wait to long it can become almost untreatable.

What is more important your house or your life?


Now you can make UHC in many different ways.

You can go the Swiss way (thanks to their big Pharma companies..) and go 100% private, but mandatory. The Swiss have UHC, but that is via private insurance coverage that is mandatory. It is also the second most expensive system on the planet after the US. But the point is that everyone is covered. And the Swiss have been thinking of dumping their private system because of the costs, but have been blocked by the big pharma companies lobbying.

Or you can go via a hybrid system where everyone is covered. In most countries that UHC today, you have freedom of choice of doctors (within reason of course), freedom of choice if you want to add to your healthcare coverage via private means. Also you do not want to wait (if there are waiting lists), you can just pay or have your private insurance company pay for treatment at a private hospital. Or you can just decline treatment. The choice is yours.

Or you can go the Cuban way.. 100% government controlled. The kicker here.. even the Cuban system is cheaper and better in many areas..

No matter how cheap they are you have to wait to use service way longer than you do in the U.S.

If I need any surgery I can get it next week after seeing a specialist this week.

You guys have to wait weeks to see some specialist and wait even longer to get surgery.

Personally I like the hybrid way, as it gives far more choice and secures the health of the nation... which is what we are talking about. Cant have people walking around spreading disease because they cant afford simple treatments can we now...

People will do that with or with out UHC.

The reason the price mechanism is broken is because of government intervention.

Like it or not, the US healthcare system is broken. Your insurance costs are insane, your standard of care for what you pay is pathetic and with all that money spent by the US on healthcare, 40+ million American's are officially without healthcare coverage. Sure they can go to the emergency room, but that is just adding to the overall cost and is far far more expensive for society as a whole, and putting a strain on emergency rooms (which dont help since there are fewer and fewer emergency rooms).

That 40 million number is such a joke.

Most of those people can afford insurance they just don't buy it because they think they don't need it.

I think only about 5 million of those people can't actually afford it.

It sucks not being able to get health insurance but you know what it takes thinking to make it in this world.

Stop being an enabler when it comes to people not taking care of themselves.
I am not responsible for anyone else except those I choose to help.

The world can be dangerous and unpredictable we should not be shielding people from their own stupid decisions.
 
What are deadbeats? People that cannot afford insurace?

Random House Dictionary said:
dead·beat 1 (děd'bēt') Pronunciation Key
n.
One who does not pay one's debts.
A lazy person; a loafer.

Are dictionaries available in Canada or is it just that everyone is waiting around for the govenment to bring them one.
 
If in doing so lives are at a proven direct risk, then no. So, say a company makes higher profits by dumping toxic waste into a local water source and people will die from drinking the water, then the company has no right to pursue that avenue for profit.
Better stop the production lines at Harley Davidson since they are making a profit (at least trying to) and I think it is a proven direct fact that people are being killed from riding them. Also I guess you are for shutting down the tobacco companies. I could go on for pages but hopefully you get the point.
 
He's trying to fix everything too fast IMO. While I don't disagree with everything Obama is trying to fix, doing it too fast isn't going to help either.

But delaying would only prolong the improvement that we need, right?

My friend would like to get his kids college funds, house paid, new car, retirement money completely saved, and have enough for vacations for the next 10 years, but he isn't going to get all of that money at once. It takes time.

Yeah, true, but there are many Americans who complain that they need help fast.
 
Was it not just the other day a US republican stated that healthcare coverage was a privilege not a right? Shows the attitude towards your fellow man there.. heartless.

Problem with this debate is that it is buried in half truths, distortions, omissions and petty partisans bull**** than the facts.. and that is just from the anti UHC people..
Show me where it states in the US Constitution that medical coverage is a right and then we'll talk. :roll:
 
Are dictionaries available in Canada or is it just that everyone is waiting around for the govenment to bring them one.

*shakes head*

No need to be snarky, TOJ.

Let's start with lazy. It's a pretty broad assumption, don't you think? Lazy as in not wanting to work? Lazy in someone being a couch potato? And what does that have to do in relation getting healthcare in Canada?


One who does not pay debts. I'm asking which debts???? Their bills, their mortgage, their Visa???? So according to you, everyone that has debt is a deadbeat.

Sorry for wanting clarification. :doh

.
 
There is clearly a difference between choosing to ride a Harley (i.e. choosing to look ridiculous) or choosing to smoke a cigarette and having a local water resource ravaged by pollution. I would have liked to see other examples taken from your pages.
 
So again I ask... is healthcare a right for every American?
and
As you know, I personally do believe it's a right, and there is no doubt that that is the fundamental question.
Believe as you wish. There is no such "Right".


Yet ask a Canadian what's the most important Canadian right, and most will tell you our healthcare.
Are Canadians that uninformed?
They have no such "Right".
Go ahead and try to prove that such a "Right" exists in Canada.
 
Better stop the production lines at Harley Davidson since they are making a profit (at least trying to) and I think it is a proven direct fact that people are being killed from riding them. Also I guess you are for shutting down the tobacco companies. I could go on for pages but hopefully you get the point.


Lets be realistic shall we? Your extremes do not prove a point, they only prove you extreme. The product, a motorcylce, in your example does not kill the person in question directly. Dumping waste into drinking water, or denying healthcare directly kills people.
 
How is the preventative medicine paid for?


Then you support unnecessaruly high health care costs.

The preventative medicine is paid for through premiums, as it is now. The difference is that when a person goes to the doctor for check-ups, screenings, or whatever preventative measures one may take to stay healthy, there is little or no cost.

The insurance companies could provide low premiums to those who use preventative medicine and live a healthy lifestyle because these people are avoiding, when possible, the more serious conditions that may be caught at early stages, thereby avoiding long-term and expensive treatments.

If all would do so, and these people could be motivated by tax breaks for enrolling in these specific types of plans, then development of many chronic and expensive to treat disorders could be caught early. This would reduce healthcare costs.
 
The preventative medicine is paid for through premiums, as it is now.
So, a third-party insurance program -- that unnecessarily raises cost of that medicine.

The difference is that when a person goes to the doctor for check-ups, screenings, or whatever preventative measures one may take to stay healthy, there is little or no cost.
Then there should be no issue with the patient paying for it himself.

The insurance companies could provide low premiums to those who use preventative medicine and live a healthy lifestyle because these people are avoiding, when possible, the more serious conditions that may be caught at early stages, thereby avoiding long-term and expensive treatments.
Its still a third party payer.

Third party payers increase costs.
 
and

Believe as you wish. There is no such "Right".



Are Canadians that uninformed?
They have no such "Right".
Go ahead and try to prove that such a "Right" exists in Canada.

Canadians will also say their healthcare is "free." If you want to play semantics, go nuts.

Bottom line is Canadians do not get turned away from any hospital or clinic. We expect to recieve care each and every time.
 
So, a third-party insurance program -- that unnecessarily raises cost of that medicine.


Then there should be no issue with the patient paying for it himself.


Its still a third party payer.

Third party payers increase costs.


Ok, so no insurance. So, will people pay for treatment through payment plans directly with the hospital/doctor, and if not then people will have to save money before they can get their broken bones fixed or get treatment? How do you envision that? I agree the world would be better off without insurance companies or government interference, but I am doubtful in reality that market forces alone would work.
 
Ok, so no insurance. So, will people pay for treatment through payment plans directly with the hospital/doctor, and if not then people will have to save money before they can get their broken bones fixed or get treatment?
What's wrong with a payment plan and/or having money in reserve in case you get sick? Seems pretty reasonable to me, in both cases.

I agree the world would be better off without insurance companies or government interference, but I am doubtful in reality that market forces alone would work.
If your gripe is the 'cost of health care' then your solution is to put as many free-market forces into the system as possible -- competition always increases quality and lowers cost.
 
Canadians will also say their healthcare is "free." If you want to play semantics, go nuts.

Bottom line is Canadians do not get turned away from any hospital or clinic. We expect to recieve care each and every time.
I am sure that you expect treatment. But that surely doesn't negate the fact that you have no 'Right' to health care.

This isn't semantics.

Instead of being factually inaccurate, how about just stating the truth.
Canadians have no such "Right".
 
I am sure that you expect treatment. But that surely doesn't negate the fact that you have no 'Right' to health care.

If the government gives it to you, especially at the expense of someone else, its a privilege, not a a right.
 
Back
Top Bottom