• 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!

Conservatives want serious health debate

SouthernDemocrat said:
No, its better that people take some personal responsibility and insure themselves so they don't treat a hospital like a bank.

Do you have a roof put on your home and then once the roofer comes back with the bill tell them "I don't have the money to pay you right now, can I work out some payments.". Its not like they work out payments with their employees when they pay them that Friday, or with their suppliers.

The reason why you pay 50 dollars for a box of tissues at the hospital is to subsidize the uninsured that are showing up there.
Click to expand...

If that's how you feel, then why do you support taxing the hell out of private companies to pay doctor bills for the welfare class? Don't look now, but you're starting to sound like a Conservative.
 
dragondad said:
I stand corrected. I did not know you can afford insurance but choose not to buy it..

An insurance dead beat....You are correct....This bill is coming after you.

I'll be damned if I'm going to continue to pay for you deadbeats when you stiff the Hospital and Doctors with your catastrophic accidents and illnesses.
Click to expand...

Wow, you went from 0 to insult city in only a few posts.

The conservatives are always talking **** about how liberals resort to personal attacks almost immediately in debate.. and I'm seeing it more often as true.

Thanks for contributing to the stereotype.

SouthernDemocrat said:
No, its better that people take some personal responsibility and insure themselves so they don't treat a hospital like a bank.

Do you have a roof put on your home and then once the roofer comes back with the bill tell them "I don't have the money to pay you right now, can I work out some payments.". Its not like they work out payments with their employees when they pay them that Friday, or with their suppliers.

The reason why you pay 50 dollars for a box of tissues at the hospital is to subsidize the uninsured that are showing up there.
Click to expand...

Apples -> Oranges.

Nice argument though.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
No, its better that people take some personal responsibility and insure themselves so they don't treat a hospital like a bank.
Click to expand...
Insurance and Personal Responsibility don't go to together, sorry. You know nothing about insurance, do you?
 
liblady said:
a public option creates needed competition, thus driving prices down.
Click to expand...

That is utter nonsense. The publlic option ELIMINATES competition.

How can private insurance possibly compete with an option that does not need to show profit to survive? When the government is in the red, they just print more money. What does a private business do when it's in the red? It must raise prices, reduce services, reduce work force, or go bankrupt.

The government will price private insurance into oblivion and take over healthcare altogether. That is Obama and his comrades ultimate plan.
 
Erod said:
That is utter nonsense. The publlic option ELIMINATES competition.

How can private insurance possibly compete with an option that does not need to show profit to survive? When the government is in the red, they just print more money. What does a private business do when it's in the red? It must raise prices, reduce services, reduce work force, or go bankrupt.

The government will price private insurance into oblivion and take over healthcare altogether. That is Obama and his comrades ultimate plan.
Click to expand...
disagree. how does ups and fedex compete with the postal service?
 
Erod said:
That is utter nonsense. The publlic option ELIMINATES competition.

How can private insurance possibly compete with an option that does not need to show profit to survive? When the government is in the red, they just print more money. What does a private business do when it's in the red? It must raise prices, reduce services, reduce work force, or go bankrupt.

The government will price private insurance into oblivion and take over healthcare altogether. That is Obama and his comrades ultimate plan.
Click to expand...


The absurdity of this post and the absurdity of our current system is the idea of a "for-profit" health care system.

There is something so obviously inherently wrong with a system that seeks profit from the health of Americans. How do you think they make a profit? Certainly not by treating the sick and injured.

"For-profit" systems fly in the face of the hypocractic oath that Doctor's take.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So you want healthcare at the quality of the post office? :shock:
Click to expand...

We have the best postal system in the world. Certainly.

Where in the world can you deposit a letter on almost any corner and have it delivered across the country in a couple of days for the price of less than a dollar?
 
disneydude said:
We have the best postal system in the world. Certainly.

Where in the world can you deposit a letter on almost any corner and have it delivered across the country in a couple of days for the price of less than a dollar?
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the one that is bankrupt? :rofl

Everything the government has run is bankrupt. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, cash for clunkers, Medicaid, Social Security, General Motors......and now you want to add the healthcare system to the government's fine track record of running businesses?
 
disneydude said:
The absurdity of this post and the absurdity of our current system is the idea of a "for-profit" health care system.

There is something so obviously inherently wrong with a system that seeks profit from the health of Americans. How do you think they make a profit? Certainly not by treating the sick and injured.

"For-profit" systems fly in the face of the hypocractic oath that Doctor's take.
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's take profit out of health care. Our doctors will be AMAZINGLY GOOD then.

You are delusional. Fortunately, you're falling into a vast abyss of a minority. This bill is dead. Thank God.
 
Erod said:
Yeah, let's take profit out of health care. Our doctors will be AMAZINGLY GOOD then.

You are delusional. Fortunately, you're falling into a vast abyss of a minority. This bill is dead. Thank God.
Click to expand...

Thank you for once again distorting the facts. Just shows that the only way you people can debate is by trying to deceive and distort.

Taking the billions of dollars that insurance companies make off of the health of the American public has absolutely ZERO to do with salaries paid to Doctors....:doh
 
Erod said:
Are you talking about the one that is bankrupt? :rofl

Everything the government has run is bankrupt. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, cash for clunkers, Medicaid, Social Security, General Motors......and now you want to add the healthcare system to the government's fine track record of running businesses?
Click to expand...


Once again....more distortions and deceptions. Good luck trying to maintain it...sooner or later people get wise to these tactics.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So you want healthcare at the quality of the post office? :shock:
Click to expand...

This is not a fair assesment of her statement. I will explain.

Erod said:
The government will price private insurance into oblivion and take over healthcare altogether. That is Obama and his comrades ultimate plan.
Click to expand...

Erod's reference was that of government being able to effectively lower the price of health care, and that the private sector cannot "control" costs vs. a government plan. A tragic contradiction in the face of market's ability to create efficiency with in a plethora of economic sectors.

The major contributors (leaving out malpractice issues/liability) to rising health care costs are obesity, tobacco use, and emergency room care being used by those who cannot afford/choose not to purchase private health care. Legally, at least in California, employer's are not allowed to strengthen their risk pool by charging obese people, smokers, or god forbid obese smokers more for their contribution to the HMO pool. Because of the nature of risk pools, it forces increases in contribution from the entire lot. Therefore prices are on the rise.

What the government option can provide is for people with pre-existing conditions, obesity issues, tobacco use, etc... to be moved off of private insurance pools, thereby reducing the aggregate liability. Of course, legislation would have to be enacted that would allow employers to cut off high risk employees from their lot, forcing them to either reduce their lifestyle choices to fit the mold, or become one with the government lot.

Combine this with the elimination of the court systems subsidy of ambulance chasers/malpractice lawyers and true health care reform can persist.

Medicare is needed for the same reasons. The elderly are just far to risky to insure in an affordable manner. What would be the point of saving for retirement if 75% of your entire health care costs are going to be utilized during your last year of life? My mother can be considered wealthy, but if her pre existing condition were to truly surface, she would be paying around $750,000 per year (according to her physician) and is forced to pay around $30,000/year for private insurance that only covers 70% of her total medical cost. Anecdotal i know, but it does explain the severity of the health care situation.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Had the libs stayed clear of the public option, this never would have happened.
Click to expand...

the conservatives would just find something else to complain about....

the biggest fear of the GOP leadership is that Obama and his "gang" will actually accomplish what the GOP never even tried to do, even though the public has been wanting it for a long time...
 
Conservatives should push for a serious health care debate. The libs want to wreck the health care industry and control people with their bill. Look at the stimulus bill that passed and failed. All it would do is hurt the country. I enjoy how Obama calls people immoral if they oppose his bill and state to Christians that we should support it blindly because Jesus would (in Obama's opinion).
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
We, the American people do not want a public option, which is why you democrats wont vote for it. :lol:


not the republicans fault, sorry.
Click to expand...

The American people's majority spoke against civil rights in 1957, 1960, and 1964. If the American people had voted on civil rights, such laws would NOT have been passed.

Health care is very similar to those equal rights matters. Of course MOST people like it the way it is. But for those who can't have the same power, (as in, ability to afford quality health insurance) someone needs to look out for them.

Please tell me you're for the federal government dictating to the private insurance sector who they have to cover and at what prices. That is the only alternative to UHC. If you are not up for such an idea, then, quite frankly, no rational debate can occur.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
We, the American people do not want a public option, which is why you democrats wont vote for it. :lol:


not the republicans fault, sorry.
Click to expand...

Actually the American public strongly favored a public option until the right-wing distortion machine went into full cycle.

One thing I have to hand it to the right-wing for though....they do understand that there is a fairly large segment of the American public that will believe anything if you say it enough. The Democrats have done a lousy job confronting the lies and distortions and as a result, they have lost that section of the public that now have bought into the lies.

What the Democrats need to do is grow a spine and pass the public option. Once this 15% or so of the population sees that the right-wing scare tactics were nothing more than distortions and propoganda they will come around.
 
JakeFromWI said:
The American people's majority spoke against civil rights in 1957, 1960, and 1964. If the American people had voted on civil rights, such laws would NOT have been passed.
Click to expand...


Right, because most americans happen to be happy with the coverage they had, means they hate black people. :roll:


Health care is very similar to those equal rights matters. Of course MOST people like it the way it is. But for those who can't have the same power, (as in, ability to afford quality health insurance) someone needs to look out for them.
Click to expand...


Wrong.


Please tell me you're for the federal government dictating to the private insurance sector who they have to cover and at what prices. That is the only alternative to UHC. If you are not up for such an idea, then, quite frankly, no rational debate can occur.
Click to expand...


Nope. That's not what I am for....
 
disneydude said:
Actually the American public strongly favored a public option until the right-wing distortion machine went into full cycle.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect.

One thing I have to hand it to the right-wing for though....they do understand that there is a fairly large segment of the American public that will believe anything if you say it enough. The Democrats have done a lousy job confronting the lies and distortions and as a result, they have lost that section of the public that now have bought into the lies.
Click to expand...

Sounds like sour grapes or loser talk. :shrug: :2razz:


What the Democrats need to do is grow a spine and pass the public option. Once this 15% or so of the population sees that the right-wing scare tactics were nothing more than distortions and propoganda they will come around.
Click to expand...



Then watch as many lose thier seats.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
This is not a fair assesment of her statement. I will explain.



Erod's reference was that of government being able to effectively lower the price of health care, and that the private sector cannot "control" costs vs. a government plan. A tragic contradiction in the face of market's ability to create efficiency with in a plethora of economic sectors.

The major contributors (leaving out malpractice issues/liability) to rising health care costs are obesity, tobacco use, and emergency room care being used by those who cannot afford/choose not to purchase private health care. Legally, at least in California, employer's are not allowed to strengthen their risk pool by charging obese people, smokers, or god forbid obese smokers more for their contribution to the HMO pool. Because of the nature of risk pools, it forces increases in contribution from the entire lot. Therefore prices are on the rise.

What the government option can provide is for people with pre-existing conditions, obesity issues, tobacco use, etc... to be moved off of private insurance pools, thereby reducing the aggregate liability. Of course, legislation would have to be enacted that would allow employers to cut off high risk employees from their lot, forcing them to either reduce their lifestyle choices to fit the mold, or become one with the government lot.

Combine this with the elimination of the court systems subsidy of ambulance chasers/malpractice lawyers and true health care reform can persist.

Medicare is needed for the same reasons. The elderly are just far to risky to insure in an affordable manner. What would be the point of saving for retirement if 75% of your entire health care costs are going to be utilized during your last year of life? My mother can be considered wealthy, but if her pre existing condition were to truly surface, she would be paying around $750,000 per year (according to her physician) and is forced to pay around $30,000/year for private insurance that only covers 70% of her total medical cost. Anecdotal i know, but it does explain the severity of the health care situation.
Click to expand...

That is probably the best post on the health care debate I have ever read on this forum.
 
liblady said:
the postal service does a terrific job at an extremely low cost.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can't figure out what some people have against the post office. Its hurting for money because the need for the service is slowly dying, not because its done a bad job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom