• 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!

Sen. Rand Paul: Right To Health Care Is Like Believing In "Slavery"

Harry Guerrilla said:
I would be fine with that, if there were repeals of other laws, like the HMO act, minimum benefit mandates, the ceiling on doctors being graduated, removal of the employer tax advantage, etc.

Surgical (aka catastrophic) plans existed about 10-15 years ago, I remember considering buying one.
Now they're no longer an option because of benefit mandates.
Click to expand...

There used to be Blue Cross Blue shield for regular medical then Major Medical for surgery etc....it was called just that
BCBS MajorMedical, you could choose to buy one and not the other...I dont remember seeing that available lately
 
xpiher said:
If the technology is there to save a life, should that life not be saved simply because the person can't pay for it?
Click to expand...

same with the technology to grow food? Or create safe ,drinkable water? The technology is there, it still requires labor and other resources to aquire it, just as health care does. I fail to see your point.
 
lpast said:
There used to be Blue Cross Blue shield for regular medical then Major Medical for surgery etc....it was called just that
BCBS MajorMedical, you could choose to buy one and not the other...I dont remember seeing that available lately
Click to expand...

They can't legally sell it and you can't legally buy it.

Every state has some level of benefit mandate, including prenatal care for men.
(Men can't get pregnant, but you still have to buy into that pool.)

If anyone believes that our current medical system is "free market" I got news...
Different trade groups have gamed the system in their favor.
 
ARealConservative said:
same with the technology to grow food? Or create safe ,drinkable water? The technology is there, it still requires labor and other resources to aquire it, just as health care does. I fail to see your point.
Click to expand...

Like I said, if the person is working and therefore contributing to society, they should have to worry about finding money to pay for basic life necessities.
 
xpiher said:
Like I said, if the person is working and therefore contributing to society, they should have to worry about finding money to pay for basic life necessities.
Click to expand...

without government intrusion in our money, and our medicine, health care costs wouldn't of ramped up so astronomically anyway.

and even in spite of all that government intrusion, mankind is still evolving and improving health care and other technologies.
 
ARealConservative said:
without government intrusion in our money, and our medicine, health care costs wouldn't of ramped up so astronomically anyway.
Click to expand...

And government wouldn't of gotten involved if there wasn't a profit motive in the first place. Blame Nixon for the establishment of our current health care system.
 
xpiher said:
And government wouldn't of gotten involved if there wasn't a profit motive in the first place. Blame Nixon for the establishment of our current health care system.
Click to expand...

Profit is a two way street.
One side profits in dollars, the other profits in improved health.
It's merely an exchange of value.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Profit is a two way street.
One side profits in dollars, the other profits in improved health.
It's merely an exchange of value.
Click to expand...

Its only an exchange of value if someone isn't trying to gouge.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Gouging is a subjective term.
Most of the time, the perception that someone is being gouged, has no relation to the facts of the situation.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing, but if people didn't pursue the evil maximum, they wouldn't of lobbied congress to get their special break.
 
xpiher said:
I'm not disagreeing, but if people didn't pursue the evil maximum, they wouldn't of lobbied congress to get their special break.
Click to expand...

And that's where I start to go after "progressives" and their living document nonsense.
This crap is only allowed because some people believe that the constitution must change with the times, instead of being amended, that the government evolves the right to intervene in the market for the benefit of a constituency.

With those things you have to accept the good with the bad.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
And that's where I start to go after "progressives" and their living document nonsense.
This crap is only allowed because some people believe that the constitution must change with the times, instead of being amended, that the government evolves the right to intervene in the market for the benefit of a constituency.

With those things you have to accept the good with the bad.
Click to expand...

The general welfare of the people isn't improved by giving tax breaks to some businesses and not others, passing laws that directly interfere with competition, etc.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
And I agree, but that wasn't what the general welfare clause was meant for.
The .gov needs to butt out.
Click to expand...

The general welfare clause can legitmately used for things like the EPA, NIH, FDA and some of their regulations.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yes but the constant tail spin to UHC, is just bandwagoning.
That isn't serious review.

Cpwill has already detailed that there are other options available that could cut costs while increasing accessibility.
Those are routinely ignored because we must follow Europe.

There are better ways, that doesn't eliminate choice of providers, and may actually be cheaper per month.
Click to expand...

Bandwagoning? I don't see that. One can hold the opinion that UHC is better without bandwagoning. And I've been down CP's road many times. Those options really won't do much, and republcians are nto really inclined to even do those, as noted by all the opportunities they had to actually statr reform. So it is not ignored, but instead something largely looked and found largely wanting.

And a UHC doesn't have to eliminate choice (though some insurance does), and can be much cheaper as it is in much of the world.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I have a choice of insurance companies, a choice of doctors, a choice of medications, pretty much anything I want.
Click to expand...

And you would still have it with the proper single payer system.
 
Boo Radley said:
Bandwagoning? I don't see that. One can hold the opinion that UHC is better without bandwagoning. And I've been down CP's road many times. Those options really won't do much, and republcians are nto really inclined to even do those, as noted by all the opportunities they had to actually statr reform. So it is not ignored, but instead something largely looked and found largely wanting.
Click to expand...

But you have.
You've latched on to it, even though alternatives exist.
You have no reason to doubt the efficacy of the alternatives, other than you just don't agree, your opinion is not a viable substitute for facts.

If more people examined the evidence, instead of bandwagoning ideas, more politicians would be interested in pursuing these things.

Boo Radley said:
And a UHC doesn't have to eliminate choice (though some insurance does), and can be much cheaper as it is in much of the world.
Click to expand...

But it does eliminate choice, if you want to control costs.
That is how it controls costs, it does not magically make things cheaper.
You're essentially taking the easy way out, it's a mental short cut because you're not interested in confronting things, that may contradict your beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
But you have.
You've latched on to it, even though alternatives exist.
You have no reason to doubt the efficacy of the alternatives, other than you just don't agree, your opinion is not a viable substitute for facts.

If more people examined the evidence, instead of bandwagoning ideas, more politicians would be interested in pursuing these things.
Click to expand...

So, if I prefer this, it means I haven't heard or looked at anything else, because if I had, I wouldn't have this, no one, so the only possible answer is CP is right? Seriously, is that your position?


But it does eliminate choice, if you want to control costs.
That is how it controls costs, it does not magically make things cheaper.
You're essentially taking the easy way out, it's a mental short cut because you're not interested in confronting things, that may contradict your beliefs.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. First, all insurers refuse to pay for everything you want, and they don't eliminate choice as you mean it. Same witht eh government. That said, nothing prevents you from buying insurance as well, or to pay yourself. You have all the choice you can afford, just as you do now. The only difference, everyone has access to adequate care. Not wish list care, but adequate care. You can go to the doctor you choose (though your insurance won't alwayss allow that), buy more insurance if you want, pay for more on your own.
 
Gina said:
There is no comparison to doctors being paid for their services and slavery.
Click to expand...

....only because you think slavery has to entail chains and whips.

If you believe you have a right to something such as affordable healthcare.....a right that cannot be denied.....then all those in the medical industry are subject to the government's behest.

When government dictates what the fruits of your labor is worth......you might not call it slavery, but even you cant call it freedom.

Your questions are just hyperbole especially since Dr. Paul is comfortable in arguing that medicare is necessary for his own poor and elderly patients.

Paul, a favorite of the tea party movement, once referred to Medicare as "socialized medicine," but has since toned down his rhetoric about the health insurance program for seniors.

Paul opposes cutting benefits for current Medicare recipients, Benton said.

"We're going to need to make some other tough choices about how we fix the insolvency problem," he said. "But cutting benefits for current recipients or near recipients would be immoral."​

We all pay for those who can't afford to pay for their medical needs. Universal/Single Payer coverage would better manage the cost of healthcare for all of us.
Click to expand...

Government involvement has never "better managed" or brought down the costs of anything........

......unless you truely believe that people who have never ran anything---like our man-child president......can run everything.
.
.
.
.
 
NGNM85 said:
That's completely asinine. Patients' would, finally, have access to the medical care they want, and need.
Click to expand...

The Single Payer Government Run Health Care we currently have denies access to plenty wants and needs.........

AMAdenials.jpg


.....its not what YOU need........my enslaved friend. Its what the plantation owner decides what you need.


If they wanted, they could still buy private insurance. If they don't want medical care, by all means, they can stay home and die, however, I don't expect many will make that choice.
Click to expand...

So what your really saying.......is Every American has a Right to the lower tier of a two-tier medical system..........
.
.
.
.
 
Boo Radley said:
So, if I prefer this, it means I haven't heard or looked at anything else, because if I had, I wouldn't have this, no one, so the only possible answer is CP is right? Seriously, is that your position?
Click to expand...

You've simply dismissed the ideas without reason.
That is my position, on your opinion.


Boo Radley said:
No, it doesn't. First, all insurers refuse to pay for everything you want, and they don't eliminate choice as you mean it. Same witht eh government. That said, nothing prevents you from buying insurance as well, or to pay yourself. You have all the choice you can afford, just as you do now. The only difference, everyone has access to adequate care. Not wish list care, but adequate care. You can go to the doctor you choose (though your insurance won't alwayss allow that), buy more insurance if you want, pay for more on your own.
Click to expand...

No they don't eliminate choice because I can pursue other avenues of care, with another insurer or my own money.

In most of the countries UHC, private non UHC care is criminalized or restricted.
Your two teir approach is invalid because the 2nd tier in those countries is typically more expensive than the regular care here.
I currently do not need insurance to go to the doctor.

You are basing your whole argument on, everyone needs insurance (whether government or private) for everything, when that is patently false.
 
NGNM85 said:
Wow, you were on that like a hawk. I wasn't singling Switzerland out, in particular, it was just the first name that came to mind. Most of Western Europe has superior healthcare to the United States, and they're much more efficient.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay. Fair enough. It's just that we don't have Medicare. Seniors have to purchase their own insurance just like everyone else, so I was wondering what your response to Badmutha was all about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom