• 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!

Health insurers offer to stop charging sick people more

Kandahar said:
Insurers offer to stop charging sick people more



This is an excellent idea, and is a compromise that I have been encouraging for quite some time. If everyone is required to have health insurance, then there won't be any problem of people waiting until they get sick and then getting insurance at a cheap price. I hope that the Obama Administration will consider this option as an important part of its health care plan.

It's good to see the insurance companies willing to make this compromise, and I think this bodes well for the future of health insurance in this country.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the insurance industry is scared of UHC to me, and that's why they are making this compromise. UHC is about to drag their bottom line right out from under them. They are worried, and they should be.

I want to see more compromise than just this. I want to see contracts with no ridiculous loopholes which, at the last second, deprive people of emergency care, long-term care, care for chronic illness, etc. I want the corruption ended, otherwise I will be for UHC in the United States until I see it put into effect.
 
Orius said:
Sounds like the insurance industry is scared of UHC to me, and that's why they are making this compromise. UHC is about to drag their bottom line right out from under them. They are worried, and they should be.
Click to expand...

The government has a revenue stream and authority that insurance companies don't have.

The government can force people to pay for other individuals misbehavior using taxation.

That is an assault on Justice.

Orius said:
I want to see more compromise than just this. I want to see contracts with no ridiculous loopholes which, at the last second, deprive people of emergency care, long-term care, care for chronic illness, etc. I want the corruption ended, otherwise I will be for UHC in the United States until I see it put into effect.
Click to expand...

That is pretty much fiction. Where do you hear this stuff?
 
Kandahar said:
And if you choose not to have health insurance and get hit by a bus tomorrow, you're going to expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for your ER care. You might swear up and down that you won't, but you will. People tend to forget political ideology when they're bleeding underneath a bus.

So instead of making me pay for your health insurance (assuming you're able to afford insurance and are just being irresponsible), I'd rather the government just mandate that you buy it yourself if you can afford it.
Click to expand...

you have a lot of experience bleeding under a bus?

didn't think so.
 
Orius said:
I want to see more compromise than just this. I want to see contracts with no ridiculous loopholes which, at the last second, deprive people of emergency care, long-term care, care for chronic illness, etc. I want the corruption ended, otherwise I will be for UHC in the United States until I see it put into effect.
Click to expand...

Is there a system in place anywhere in the world which doesn't deprive some percentage of the population of emergency care, long-term care, or care for chronic illness?

Is there a system anywhere that is not subject to corruption?

:confused:
 
Grateful Heart said:
Is there a system in place anywhere in the world which doesn't deprive some percentage of the population of emergency care, long-term care, or care for chronic illness?

Is there a system anywhere that is not subject to corruption?

:confused:
Click to expand...

What I mean is... there always seems to be some last minute fine print that deprives people of their care. I have plenty of American friends who have been denied over outrageous claims. The insurance companies are too powerful to sue. You sue them, and they have a defense team of ten lawyers. The only way to curb the corruption is to put the pressure on them, and UHC is doing that.

I think UHC should be implemented for the simple fact it will iron out the kinks in the corrupt corporate sector and give people better options in private insurance. For instance, in Canada, private insurance co-exists with the public system, and their rates are way more reasonable than in the United States. You also don't hear of people getting screwed over as much. If our UHC disappeared, the corporate sector would run amock. This is the biggest fear of Canadians.
 
Kandahar said:
Nope. I'd support government programs to teach sex education in impoverished areas, and hand out free condoms. But not forced abortion.
Click to expand...
Just another example of a "pro-choice" liberal that wants to take away choices that he doesn't think people should have.
:roll:
 
Goobieman said:
Just another example of a "pro-choice" liberal that wants to take away choices that he doesn't think people should have.
:roll:
Click to expand...

What part of not forcing people to get abortions is taking away choices?
 
SO requiring by law for you to go out and buy health insurance is the exercise the "right" to have health insurance?


:confused::confused::confused:
 
Orius said:
What part of not forcing people to get abortions is taking away choices?
Click to expand...
Under the same argument...
-He wants to forcibly take away the choice of having insurance.
-He -doesn't- want to forcibly take away the choice of having a child.
Thus, my statement.
 
Goobieman said:
Under the same argument...
-He wants to forcibly take away the choice of having insurance.
-He -doesn't- want to forcibly take away the choice of having a child.
Thus, my statement.
Click to expand...

Abortion and UHC are not the same thing. Being pro-choice with the former doesn't mean you are automatically pro-choice with the latter. What a laughable comparison.
 
Orius said:
Abortion and UHC are not the same thing.
Click to expand...
The argument for forcibly removing the choice for both, is -- and yet, he balks at the removal of one choice while fully supporting the removal of the other.

It all comes down to what I said:
Just another example of a "pro-choice" liberal that wants to take away choices that HE doesn't think people should have.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I have private insurance but at the same time I'm classified as the working poor.

Why should the working poor pay for sick people?

I think it is more uncivilized for people to force other people to do things they may not want to.
Click to expand...
So you're paying for insurance every month but you don't mind that tens of millions are paying nothing? And getting health care? If the working poor can't pay for an insurance policy maybe they could pay half or a quarter. Any money they pay would help reduce the premiums of the insured.

Nobody should have the choice to be a freeloader.
 
Goobieman said:
The argument for forcibly removing the choice for both, is -- and yet, he balks at the removal of one choice while fully supporting the removal of the other.

It all comes down to what I said:
Just another example of a "pro-choice" liberal that wants to take away choices that HE doesn't think people should have.
Click to expand...

Your attempt to twist the matter into some kind of liberal hypocrisy is amusing, but not relevant. Try posting an actual argument that isn't a personal attack.

That's all I have left to say to you on this.
 
Orius said:
Your attempt to twist the matter into some kind of liberal hypocrisy is amusing, but not relevant.
Click to expand...
Absolutely it is -- that you refuse to assign it any such relevance is meaningless.

The party of choice, isn't -- and pointing that out is FAR from a personal attack.
You dont have to like it, but you really should accept it.
 
sazerac said:
We have to have auto insurance. No choice about it. When people don't have auto insurance it costs everybody more for the premiums.
Click to expand...
That's because states can place all kinds of requirements on the exercise of your privilege to drive on the roads -- when you choose to drive on the roads.

Apples/oranges.
 
sazerac said:
But that's like saying you could just not get sick.
Click to expand...




How so?


I can keep myself healthy, I can do everything I can to not get sick, and still get sick.


I can choose not to drive, and therefore not be required to carry insurance.




My point is, health insurance is not a right. And to force me to pay for health insurance seems the antithesis to a "right" if there ever was one.
 
Goobieman said:
No its not. No one HAS to drive.
Click to expand...

Nobody is telling anybody they have to have auto insurance if they don't drive.

But there is nobody who doesn't have a chance of getting sick. There are no non-drivers. We all can get sick or injured, We shouldn't leave it up to others to pay the doctor. Everybody should pay for insurance or they should pay what they can based on their income.
 
sazerac said:
Nobody is telling anybody they have to have auto insurance if they don't drive.
Click to expand...
You;re right. And of they were, then your argument would have some bearing.
 
sazerac said:
So you're paying for insurance every month but you don't mind that tens of millions are paying nothing? And getting health care? If the working poor can't pay for an insurance policy maybe they could pay half or a quarter. Any money they pay would help reduce the premiums of the insured.

Nobody should have the choice to be a freeloader.
Click to expand...

The freeloaders already exist. See Medicaid and Medicare.

Everyone who has insurance is covering there butts, it is not right.
 
Kandahar said:
You accrued a financial obligation from someone who performed a service for you. You did not immediately pay it off, and instead paid it off gradually, month by month.

How is that not a loan?



In other words, you depended on the fact that their sympathy for your situation would overcome their business senses. And how exactly does always relying on the kindness of strangers epitomize personal responsibility?

Your anecdote has no relevance to this discussion (at least not for the point you're trying to make), because you did NOT do the responsible thing. You relied on the hospital to help you in spite of their business interests; after all, they would have little reason to believe that letting you pay month-by-month would be a good investment. Your example does not help your argument; on the contrary, it makes it laughable when you call for personal responsibility and the freedom to not have to pay for others' medical expenses.



I'd rather just have the money now. I think most wise businessmen would.
Click to expand...
Are you ****ing kidding me? Your warped definition of irresponsible equals carrying a line of credit and paying it off? That is what you consider irresponsible? Paying off a debt?

All I have to say is:
:rofl:rofl

I mean, really. I've read some silly **** on here and this is next in the stupid line right after 1069s claim that one is "responsible and independent" if they live off the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom