• 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

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.
10 may be gone, but her stank still lingers :lol:
 
Just another example of a "pro-choice" liberal that wants to take away choices that he doesn't think people should have.
:roll:

What in God's name are you babbling about now. "Pro-choice" in the context of abortion doesn't mean that you support every choice that anyone could possibly make on every issue.

Stop trying to derail the thread.
 
What in God's name are you babbling about now. "Pro-choice" in the context of abortion doesn't mean that you support every choice that anyone could possibly make on every issue.
So you -admit- you do not support peoples' right to choose.
Good for you!
 
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?

Nope, paying off your debt is responsible. What was NOT responsible is getting yourself into that situation, and putting the hospital into a situation where they had to choose between not getting paid in a timely manner or not helping you at all.

Your attempts to equate this to a regular line of credit are NOT valid. This is not an auto loan, where you had collateral and where the car dealer knew you weren't going to die or be sick without the car.

For one thing, the hospital helped you against their own business interests merely because they were sympathetic to your situation. Put yourself in their position and look at it from a purely business perspective: If someone earning $12K per year wanted you to give them an expensive medical treatment and promised to gradually pay it off over time, what would YOUR answer be? From a business perspective only.

For another thing, you had no collateral. If you default on an auto loan, they repossess your car. If you default on a mortgage, they foreclose on your house. If you default on a medical loan, they cannot repossess your body.

Finally, a hospital is not a bank. The fact that you didn't carry insurance and just relied on the hospital to temporarily forgo their payment for services rendered, is the height of irresponsibility.

The only reason your situation worked out was because A) the hospital felt sorry for you, and B) you took advantage of their sympathy. If you're going to argue that the system is fine, that people just need to be responsible, and that people don't need health insurance, you'd do well not to mention your personal situation, since you exemplify exactly the opposite.

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're basically arguing that you were responsible and independent because you lived off the hospital for a while. That's hardly much better.
 
Last edited:
Did anyone see what ELSE the insurers wanted?

They DO want Congress to force everyone to buy insurance.
And they DON'T want Obama to set up a government option.

In other words, the insurers would end up with even more money, with no oversight, and no competition. And America would go bankrupt.

The only way to break up the illegal insurance oligopoly and recoup the $600 billion we give them needlessly each year, is to ensure that there is a viable government option. We need that money now.
 
Did anyone see what ELSE the insurers wanted?

They DO want Congress to force everyone to buy insurance.
And they DON'T want Obama to set up a government option.

In other words, the insurers would end up with even more money, with no oversight, and no competition. And America would go bankrupt.

The only way to break up the illegal insurance oligopoly and recoup the $600 billion we give them needlessly each year, is to ensure that there is a viable government option. We need that money now.

I agree that we should have government options as well. Nevertheless, the deal they are offering represents a significant breakthrough. I would assume that a mandate for coverage would be part of any universal health plan anyway, so it's significant that the insurers are willing to agree to stop price discrimination.
 
Nope, paying off your debt is responsible. What was NOT responsible is getting yourself into that situation, and putting the hospital into a situation where they had to choose between not getting paid in a timely manner or not helping you at all.
Just like any other business or person who performs a service.

For one thing, the hospital helped you against their own business interests merely because they were sympathetic to your situation.
Put yourself in their position and look at it from a purely business perspective: If someone earning $12K per year wanted you to give them an expensive medical treatment and promised to gradually pay it off over time, what would YOUR answer be? From a business perspective only.
That was THEIR choice. They didn't have to choose to do it.

For another thing, you had no collateral. If you default on an auto loan, they repossess your car. If you default on a mortgage, they foreclose on your house. If you default on a medical loan, they cannot repossess your body.
And they knew that, and still chose to do it. Amazing, huh?

Finally, a hospital is not a bank. The fact that you didn't carry insurance and just relied on the hospital to temporarily forgo their payment for services rendered, is the height of irresponsibility.
Relied on them? I didn't "rely" on them for ****. They wanted to perform a service for my money, and I allowed them to do so.

The only reason your situation worked out was because A) the hospital felt sorry for you, and B) you took advantage of their sympathy. If you're going to argue that the system is fine, that people just need to be responsible, and that people don't need health insurance, you'd do well not to mention your personal situation, since you exemplify exactly the opposite.

LMFAO

THEY want to do the treatment. I didn't want it done. They insisted. I insisted I couldn't afford it. They insisted I could make payments. I accepted their offer.

And that's somehow irresponsible to you? ROFL Really, it is quite amusing what you consider irresponsible. Seriously. According to your non logic, anyone who carries credit and pays it off is irresponsible.

You're basically arguing that you were responsible and independent because you lived off the hospital for a while. That's hardly much better.
How did I "live off a hospital"? A business wanted to perform a service and made me an offer, I accepted it, allowed them to perform said service, and paid them for their time and effort. Just like people do with any number of businesses all over the country, every single day.

So again, you think it's irresponsible to carry a line of credit and pay it off. Hey, fine, whatever. But don't expect me to take any of your posts seriously from now on.
 
Just like any other business or person who performs a service.


That was THEIR choice. They didn't have to choose to do it.


And they knew that, and still chose to do it. Amazing, huh?

They made the decision to help you because they felt sympathy for you, not because it was in their business interest. And the fact that your solution to the health care crisis is "Don't buy insurance, and take advantage of the nearest hospital that takes pity on you" does NOT demonstrate your personal responsibility.

rivrrat said:
Relied on them? I didn't "rely" on them for ****. They wanted to perform a service for my money, and I allowed them to do so.

If that is true, it is most likely because the doctors believed that the service would benefit YOU. Not because they wanted your business and were thinking about all the money they'd be raking in from you. And you know what, that's fine. I'm glad that there are doctors and hospitals like that in the world, who are willing to help people who can't afford it. However, they shouldn't have to shoulder the financial burden for every irresponsible person who walks through their doors. Which is exactly why the government needs to pick up the slack and mandate health insurance.

rivrrat said:
LMFAO

THEY want to do the treatment. I didn't want it done. They insisted. I insisted I couldn't afford it. They insisted I could make payments. I accepted their offer.

Uh-huh. They "insisted." Never in my life have I known of a hospital that insisted on a medical procedure for a mentally competent person who didn't want it. That would violate the Hippocratic Oath and a number of laws. Your story does not add up.

rivrrat said:
And that's somehow irresponsible to you? ROFL Really, it is quite amusing what you consider irresponsible. Seriously. According to your non logic, anyone who carries credit and pays it off is irresponsible.

Nope, if you get a mortgage and pay it off in a timely manner, that's very responsible. If you get a loan to pay for your education and pay it off in a timely manner, that's very responsible. If you take advantage of someone's sympathies and convince a non-loan business to give you a loan for a medical procedure because you weren't carrying health insurance, that's incredibly irresponsible.

rivrrat said:
How did I "live off a hospital"? A business wanted to perform a service and made me an offer, I accepted it, allowed them to perform said service, and paid them for their time and effort. Just like people do with any number of businesses all over the country, every single day.

When you get an auto loan, you don't guilt-trip the dealer into believing that you'll die or be very sick if he doesn't help you against his better judgment.

rivrrat said:
So again, you think it's irresponsible to carry a line of credit and pay it off. Hey, fine, whatever. But don't expect me to take any of your posts seriously from now on.

I stopped taking your posts about personal responsibility seriously the minute you told this story.
 
Last edited:
They made the decision to help you because they felt sympathy for you, not because it was in their business interest.
Doesn't matter why. What matters is they CHOSE to do it.

And the fact that your solution to the health care crisis is "Don't buy insurance, and take advantage of the nearest hospital that takes pity on you" does NOT demonstrate your personal responsibility.
Nice strawman. As such, I'll ignore this.


If that is true, it is most likely because the doctors believed that the service would benefit YOU. Not because they wanted your business and were thinking about all the money they'd be raking in from you. And you know what, that's fine. I'm glad that there are doctors and hospitals like that in the world, who are willing to help people who can't afford it. However, they shouldn't have to shoulder the financial burden for every irresponsible person who walks through their doors. Which is exactly why the government needs to pick up the slack and mandate health insurance.
Every hospital that opens knows goddamn good and well that they will be giving lines of credit to thousands of people that walk through their doors. If they're not okay with that, then they should open another business. Simple as. Ditto for all doctors.

Uh-huh. They "insisted." Never in my life have I known of a hospital that insisted on a medical procedure for a mentally competent person who didn't want it. That would violate the Hippocratic Oath and a number of laws. Your story does not add up.
You've not been in hospitals much, have you? ROFL I assure you, they insist on a lot of things. No, they cannot FORCE anyone to undergo any treatment, but they CAN insist that it's in your best interest to do so. To NOT do that would be a violation of their oath. Otherwise, what would be the point of going to them at all?

Are you really so desperate that you're grasping at these piddly straws that make no sense whatsoever?


Nope, if you get a mortgage and pay it off in a timely manner, that's very responsible. If you get a loan to pay for your education and pay it off in a timely manner, that's very responsible. If you take advantage of someone's sympathies and convince a non-loan business to give you a loan for a medical procedure because you weren't carrying health insurance, that's incredibly irresponsible.
Convince them? LMFAO I can't force anyone to do anything. And again, if hospitals don't want people to have lines of credit then you know what? They shouldn't allow people to have lines of credit. :shock: Neither should doctors or dentists. But as it is, by and large they DO. And that is THEIR CHOICE. Are you getting this whole THEIR CHOICE thing yet? I mean, how many fricken times do I have to beat it into your brain? THEIR CHOICE.

When you get an auto loan, you don't guilt-trip the dealer into believing that you'll die or be very sick if he doesn't help you against his better judgment.
And the point of this strawman was.... what, exactly?


I stopped taking your posts about personal responsibility seriously the minute you told this story.
Well of course you would! Since your definition of irresponsible so whacked, I can certainly understand you not taking anyone seriously who actually knows that paying off a debt is a responsible act. But hey, you just keep to your world where carrying lines of credit and paying them off is "irresponsible", and the rest of us will point and giggle. :cool:
 
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.

Of course, thus making the cost of health care even higher for those who make good health choices and live a healthy lifestyle.

Health care premiums should be based on how healthy one's lifestyle is, NOT once premium fits all.
 
While I'm fine with charging McDonald's enthusiasts more, I have a big problem with charging heart disease patients more.

You must have missed the news that McDonald's has a better grade on offering healthy menu choices than most restaurants.
 
Of course, thus making the cost of health care even higher for those who make good health choices and live a healthy lifestyle.

Health care premiums should be based on how healthy one's lifestyle is, NOT once premium fits all.

I really don't have a problem with insurance companies charging people higher premiums for unhealthy lifestyles (past or present). I object to them charging people more for preexisting conditions.
 
I really don't have a problem with insurance companies charging people higher premiums for unhealthy lifestyles (past or present). I object to them charging people more for preexisting conditions.

Where I live, we have a national health care system where premiums are based on income. To me, this is disgusting. I live a VERY healthy lifestyle (I exercise everyday - run a sub-3 hr marathon -, eat a healthy diet with little junk food, and don't smoke or drink) yet because I have a higher than average income, I have to pay more for the health insurance program. That is just wrong.

I have to read more about this proposal. One thing I am interested in regarding these pre-existing conditions. Did these people decide to take out health insurance BECAUSE they now have a chronic health condition OR are they merely changing health insurance companies to get better coverage or due to change of jobs? It would be interesting to know the numbers on this, if there are any available.
 
OK, how about this for an option. Health insurance is completely voluntary, be it private or governmental. However, if you do not have insurance, and do not have a way to pay, hospitals and physicians no longer have any obligation to treat you. They can say, "you cannot pay, you do not get treatment", and have zero legal liability at this point. Seems to me this fulfills the issue of personal responsibility, and doesn't force anything on anyone.

How does that sound?
 
OK, how about this for an option. Health insurance is completely voluntary, be it private or governmental. However, if you do not have insurance, and do not have a way to pay, hospitals and physicians no longer have any obligation to treat you. They can say, "you cannot pay, you do not get treatment", and have zero legal liability at this point. Seems to me this fulfills the issue of personal responsibility, and doesn't force anything on anyone.

How does that sound?



Tastes like wood grilled Red Herring with an "extremist logic" aioli. ;)
 
OK, how about this for an option. Health insurance is completely voluntary, be it private or governmental. However, if you do not have insurance, and do not have a way to pay, hospitals and physicians no longer have any obligation to treat you. They can say, "you cannot pay, you do not get treatment", and have zero legal liability at this point. Seems to me this fulfills the issue of personal responsibility, and doesn't force anything on anyone.

How does that sound?

Physicians are already under no obligation to treat you. Every doctor's office I've been to states "Payment expected at time of service, unless other arrangements have been made." Which means: If you can't pay right now, and they don't wish to give you a line of credit with them, then you go to another doctor. Hell, some docs require payment PRIOR to service. And double hell, I've actually had a doctor decline to see me BECAUSE I had insurance. Yes, you heard me right.

Hospitals also are only required to offer emergency life saving treatment, nothing more.

So, I see nothing wrong with your statement whatsoever. Why should hospitals or private physicians offer their services to anyone against their will. They shouldn't.
 
OK, how about this for an option. Health insurance is completely voluntary, be it private or governmental. However, if you do not have insurance, and do not have a way to pay, hospitals and physicians no longer have any obligation to treat you. They can say, "you cannot pay, you do not get treatment", and have zero legal liability at this point. Seems to me this fulfills the issue of personal responsibility, and doesn't force anything on anyone.

How does that sound?

No, for several reasons:

1) When someone has just been in a serious car accident and was airlifted into the hospital, it will likely detract from the treatment if the first thing everyone does is try to find the patient's insurance card.

2) Most hospitals, like most anyone else in that situation, will choose not to simply let people die when they have the opportunity to prevent it...legal obligation or not. There is no reason to place them in that tough spot and burden THEM with the cost of irresponsible or indigent people who don't have health insurance.

3) This will encourage more people (including certain people on this thread) to take advantage of the hospital's sympathies and not carry insurance, thus distorting the market.


Health insurance is NOT like auto insurance, and to treat them as if they are the same is short-sighted and impractical.
 
Last edited:
No, for several reasons:

1) When someone has just been in a serious car accident and was airlifted into the hospital, it will likely detract from the treatment if the first thing everyone does is try to find the patient's insurance card.

.

This is a little bit off topic but last night here in Dallas a pro football player for the Houston Texans was racing to see his dying mother at the hospital. He ran a red light. A Dallas police officer pulled him over in the hospital parking lot and held him, threatened to tow his car while his mother was dying in the hospital all over because he could not find his insurance card. In the mean time his passed away with out him being their.
 
Tastes like wood grilled Red Herring with an "extremist logic" aioli. ;)

Not a red herring in the least. It is a question on DP's favorite game show, HYPOCRISY CHECK! And it makes sense...if you do not believe in government mandated health care, nor socialized medicine, then you will have no problem with what I stated. If you do, but you have a problem with my proposal, "you've got some 'splainin' to do". :mrgreen:
 
Physicians are already under no obligation to treat you. Every doctor's office I've been to states "Payment expected at time of service, unless other arrangements have been made." Which means: If you can't pay right now, and they don't wish to give you a line of credit with them, then you go to another doctor. Hell, some docs require payment PRIOR to service. And double hell, I've actually had a doctor decline to see me BECAUSE I had insurance. Yes, you heard me right.

Hospitals also are only required to offer emergency life saving treatment, nothing more.

So, I see nothing wrong with your statement whatsoever. Why should hospitals or private physicians offer their services to anyone against their will. They shouldn't.

In bold. I am including this in my proposal. This will no longer be required. If you cannot pay, you cannot receive emergency, life threatening treatment. That would be the government paying for your health care, which, ultimately, means tax payers...you and I.

So, rivrrat, do you still have no problem with my proposal?
 
No, for several reasons:

1) When someone has just been in a serious car accident and was airlifted into the hospital, it will likely detract from the treatment if the first thing everyone does is try to find the patient's insurance card.

2) Most hospitals, like most anyone else in that situation, will choose not to simply let people die when they have the opportunity to prevent it...legal obligation or not. There is no reason to place them in that tough spot and burden THEM with the cost of irresponsible or indigent people who don't have health insurance.

3) This will encourage more people (including certain people on this thread) to take advantage of the hospital's sympathies and not carry insurance, thus distorting the market.


Health insurance is NOT like auto insurance, and to treat them as if they are the same is short-sighted and impractical.

Kandahar has passed the HYPOCRISY CHECK! question and shown consistency. Your have won the newest version of HYPOCRISY CHECK! the home game.
 
In bold. I am including this in my proposal. This will no longer be required. If you cannot pay, you cannot receive emergency, life threatening treatment. That would be the government paying for your health care, which, ultimately, means tax payers...you and I.

So, rivrrat, do you still have no problem with my proposal?

I'm not sure how they can determine if someone can pay or not when they're unconscious and bleeding to death on a gurney. They're lucky if they even know what their name is.
 
OK, how about this for an option. Health insurance is completely voluntary, be it private or governmental. However, if you do not have insurance, and do not have a way to pay, hospitals and physicians no longer have any obligation to treat you. They can say, "you cannot pay, you do not get treatment", and have zero legal liability at this point. Seems to me this fulfills the issue of personal responsibility, and doesn't force anything on anyone.

How does that sound?
Non emergency physicians can and do behave this way now. However folks are not EVER turned away from the emergency room without evaluation and treatment to insure that they are in "stable" condition. This is why emergency rooms across the nation are now commonly used as primary care drs. for the non-insured.

I'm certainly not in favor of allowing kids to die because their parents didn't bother to or could not insure them. Nor do I think we as a society could or should stomach allowing large groups of people to succumb to easily treatable conditions because they don't have $$$ for treatments like antibiotics or life saving surgery.

I would support the government mandating that we are ALL required to have health insurance. I'd also support a system where insurance premiums are graduated depending on your ability to pay. If done right, insurance could ultimately be cheaper for everyone.
 
I'm not sure how they can determine if someone can pay or not when they're unconscious and bleeding to death on a gurney. They're lucky if they even know what their name is.

If they cannot respond to the question, "how are you paying for this", then the default would be, "I cannot", and they would not be treated.

So, now that my proposal is further clarified, are you OK with this?
 
Non emergency physicians can and do behave this way now. However folks are not EVER turned away from the emergency room without evaluation and treatment to insure that they are in "stable" condition. This is why emergency rooms across the nation are now commonly used as primary care drs. for the non-insured.

I'm certainly not in favor of allowing kids to die because their parents didn't bother to or could not insure them. Nor do I think we as a society could or should stomach allowing large groups of people to succumb to easily treatable conditions because they don't have $$$ for treatments like antibiotics or life saving surgery.

I would support the government mandating that we are ALL required to have health insurance. I'd also support a system where insurance premiums are graduated depending on your ability to pay. If done right, insurance could ultimately be cheaper for everyone.

talloulou has passed the HYPOCRISY CHECK! question and shown consistency. Your have won the newest version of HYPOCRISY CHECK! the home game.
 
Back
Top Bottom