• 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!

Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

Paschendale said:
No one else could do it. Even if private corporations had any interest in helping those who can't make them rich, they don't have the massive amount of infrastructure to make it happen. But seriously, if you want government to be more effective at running the programs it takes on, stop handcuffing it. Get the private interests away from government. Get out the lobby money, get out the corporate campaign donations. Those massive 2000 page bills will shrink pretty quickly if they only need to tackle one issue. And then stop funneling money into the upper classes, where it does no one any good. Government is ineffective because we make it that way. Give it the means to accomplish the tasks we set it to, and it will be able to do them.

But it already does most things better than the private sector.
Click to expand...

And for less money. Some people seem to think that transferring all health care insurance to the private sector is going to save them money, when in fact it will just make it more expensive for everyone by adding increased administration cost and profit.

It will only make health care even more expensive than it already is. I fail to see how this would be an improvement.
 
Cephus said:
I don't, please define "enough" for the class. Is it catastrophic care? Is it preventative care? Is it anything that you can possibly have a doctor do, necessary or not? I guarantee you'll never get any agreement from everyone on what "enough" actually means.
Click to expand...

As I said, it's hard to define. Yes, it's preventative care. No, it's not elective surgery and procedures. Basically, you have a certain amount of money to spend on health care. Someone's going to have to make a system for determining who gets what treatments based on the cost, the severity of the condition, how old the patient is, how common the condition is, and so on. Enough is basically the best we can reasonably do at any given time.
 
RiverDad said:
You're undermining the whole case for UHC. Look at what's going on in Canada. It used to be the case, and I think it still might be in some provinces, that you couldn't buy additional care. They frame this debate as "two-tier" health care. One side wants to have a system where one can buy additional care or just leave the public system. The other side is adamantly opposed to this because it will privilege those with resources over those without the same level of resources. This latter group is actively working to restrict the system to a one-payer model.
Click to expand...

Australia has a two tier system - more or less. We all pay into the "free health" scheme but if we want to go private we can. It is the best of both worlds actually
 
bowerbird said:
Australia has a two tier system - more or less. We all pay into the "free health" scheme but if we want to go private we can. It is the best of both worlds actually
Click to expand...

So basically Aussie has a taxed system to pay for Universal health care to cover everyone...and if you have the money to pay for cadillac private care you can....isnt that the same for any country that has universal healthcare....if your rich you can use a paid private system ?
 
Reading through this thread theres alot of ideas....but none that demonstrates how we can cover the 45million people that arent covered and who pays when they arent covered and need medical care...public or private health care system...someone his paying for this....and no posts address how we control the untold billions its costing u s in illeigal immigrant healthcare.

Cutting social security and Medicare does nothing to address what the real problems are but thats all you hear from the gop and teaparty....its like cu tting those two programs along with medicaid is our salvation
 
atrasicarius said:
As I said, it's hard to define. Yes, it's preventative care. No, it's not elective surgery and procedures. Basically, you have a certain amount of money to spend on health care. Someone's going to have to make a system for determining who gets what treatments based on the cost, the severity of the condition, how old the patient is, how common the condition is, and so on. Enough is basically the best we can reasonably do at any given time.
Click to expand...

So when we're economically in the toilet, we do less than we can when we're economically flush?
 
No, we shouldn't allow the uninsured to die. I support universal healthcare, but I also don't believe that Paul or any of the Republicans want the poor/uninsured to be denied life saving medical care.
 
atrasicarius said:
Alright, I will make that argument. Because, see, we live in this thing called a society, and sometimes it's beneficial to everyone for all the members of a society to pitch in for the common good. Because, see, the common good includes you.
Click to expand...
-That's- your justification for involutary servitude?
 
While I'm quite conservative on social issues and I believe it's good to work hard to earn your bread, I don't think it's good to let people die from not having insurance. With a bad knee and the inability to find a job in a harsh economy, why should that man have to die? Not having insurance does not necessarily mean that person is lazy.
 
atrasicarius said:
You guys always talk about how easy it is to raise taxes on someone else. I guess it's equally easy to let someone else's kid die.
Click to expand...

When you write policy based on the mental image of your child dying, it's not going to be a cost-effective policy.

Wanna know why? Because watching children die makes people extremely emotional and not always rational.

In other words, the left's appeals to pity do not strengthen their arguments, they weaken them.
 
atrasicarius said:
Alright, I will make that argument. Because, see, we live in this thing called a society, and sometimes it's beneficial to everyone for all the members of a society to pitch in for the common good. Because, see, the common good includes you.
Click to expand...

which would be fine IF, repeat IF, ALL the members of society pitched in. problem is, the ones getting the most benefit are the ones who pitch in the least.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The Kerr-Mills program covered elder care before Medicare.
Click to expand...

That's not the claim. The claim is that before government health programs if you had no money, doctors would still treat you. That's simply untrue.
 
Hatuey said:
That's not the claim. The claim is that before government health programs if you had no money, doctors would still treat you. That's simply untrue.
Click to expand...

Doctors treat you now without money, government health care programs, or insurance. Why would they not have done it before the creation of government health care?
 
Hatuey said:
That's not the claim. The claim is that before government health programs if you had no money, doctors would still treat you. That's simply untrue.
Click to expand...

as long as you had a chicken they would treat you
 
OscarB63 said:
which would be fine IF, repeat IF, ALL the members of society pitched in. problem is, the ones getting the most benefit are the ones who pitch in the least.
Click to expand...

"For the Common Good" I think would indicate (to some degree) that those who "have" are pitching in for those who "have not". If everyone had enough, there'd be no pitching in needed.

So it comes with no surprise that those who get the most benefit are going to be those who pitch in the least under this sort of circumstance.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
Doctors treat you now without money, government health care programs, or insurance. Why would they not have done it before the creation of government health care?
Click to expand...

Unless you can locate a community health care center that charges nothing, at least here, this is not true.
 
David D. said:
"For the Common Good" I think would indicate (to some degree) that those who "have" are pitching in for those who "have not". If everyone had enough, there'd be no pitching in needed.

So it comes with no surprise that those who get the most benefit are going to be those who pitch in the least under this sort of circumstance.
Click to expand...

so, again,, explain how the "haves" helping the "have nots" does anything for the COMMON good.
 
OscarB63 said:
so, again,, explain how the "haves" helping the "have nots" does anything for the COMMON good.
Click to expand...

If you don't give the have nots everything they need, they'll commit crimes and you'll spend more jailing them and repairing the damage they cause. Or so the argument goes. It works just like a hostage situation.
 
Neomalthusian said:
If you don't give the have nots everything they need, they'll commit crimes and you'll spend more jailing them and repairing the damage they cause. Or so the argument goes. It works just like a hostage situation.
Click to expand...

not if we allow them to die by refusing to give them free life saving medical care :thumbs:
 
Wake said:
Not having insurance does not necessarily mean that person is lazy.
Click to expand...

True. It could just mean that they have a "pre-existing condition."
 
Neomalthusian said:
If you don't give the have nots everything they need, they'll commit crimes and you'll spend more jailing them and repairing the damage they cause. Or so the argument goes. It works just like a hostage situation.
Click to expand...
Shoot the hostage - take him out of the equation.
 
Pinkie said:
Unless you can locate a community health care center that charges nothing, at least here, this is not true.
Click to expand...

I can find you at least 10 religion-sponsored clinics in the DFW area that provide free care if your income is below a set point. And I know they exist in Michigan and Indiana too.
 
Helix said:
True. It could just mean that they have a "pre-existing condition."
Click to expand...

It could also mean that they, like my father, pay for the medical care out of pocket on an as-needed basis.
 
tessaesque said:
It could also mean that they, like my father, pay for the medical care out of pocket on an as-needed basis.
Click to expand...

here's hoping he doesn't need anything that will cost him a fortune, because it will ruin him.
 
liblady said:
here's hoping he doesn't need anything that will cost him a fortune, because it will ruin him.
Click to expand...

That'd suck. But he'd pay as much as he could, as long as he could. There was a point over the last few years when having an insurance premium (even just on himself) would have been the difference between keeping or losing his house. He's spent less on paying full-price for medical care in 20 years than he'd spend on premiums in one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom