• 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 Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

Is access to health care a privilege, right or responsibility?

  • Total voters
    91
ttwtt78640 said:
Medicare is for ALL citizens that are at least 65 years old.
Medicaid is a state/federal program for ALL citizens up to the poverty level established.
Social Security is for ALL citizens based on age/disability and rates vary based on lifetime contributions.
Click to expand...

Right, just like the GOP's insurance mandate is for ALL citizens.
 
Neomalthusian said:
"Well the Supreme Court said so!" I guess I no longer care what all batsh** crazy things have been upheld. So many abuses and twisting semantic rationalizations have passed through the Court, championed by the spendthrifts in Congress and the White House, that the Constitution has been utterly voided.
Click to expand...

Not a fan of the rule of law based on the US Constitution, eh?
 
Catawba said:
Not a fan of the rule of law based on the US Constitution, eh?
Click to expand...

Not a fan of rendering words and concepts meaningless by way of loose association and semantic acrobatics.

Something tells me you wouldn't smugly play this supremacy card if you disagreed with the Court's decision on the issue at hand.

By the way, "based on the Constitution," a direct tax not based on population is unconstitutional per Article I of the constitution, and the Court just arbitrarily contradicted this with its decision. So when the "rule of law" is amorphous and interpreted in any backward way, and is rendered changed by decisions of the court, without ratification, yes, you could say I am not a fan of that.
 
Last edited:
LibertyBurns said:
Don't have a problem paying for these types of things as long as government acts responsible in doing these things, which I feel they are not doing the best job, thanks to political radicals on both sides of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

Which is my point. the problem isn't taxation, it's misuse of tax dollars.

Catawba said:
That's never been enough. That is why most of us have moral codes that we live by, whether religious based or not.
Click to expand...
It's the only absolute reason to survive, which transcends any moral code, religious belief, or custom. Anything beyond natural law is up to the individual.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Not a fan of rendering words and concepts meaningless by way of loose association and semantic acrobatics.

Something tells me you wouldn't smugly play this supremacy card if you disagreed with the Court's decision on the issue at hand.
Click to expand...


I disagree with Citizen's United, but I accept it as the rule of law under our Constitution. That is the difference between you and I.

By the way, "based on the Constitution," a direct tax not based on population is unconstitutional per Article I of the constitution, and the Court just arbitrarily contradicted this with its decision. So when the "rule of law" is amorphous and interpreted in any backward way, and is rendered changed by decisions of the court, without ratification, yes, you could say I am not a fan of that.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court is specifically cited in the Constitution as the body that determines what is Constitutional, and what is not. I can find no reference in the Constitution about issues being decided by anonymous internet dudes.
 
Lokiate said:
It's the only absolute reason to survive, which transcends any moral code, religious belief, or custom. Anything beyond natural law is up to the individual.
Click to expand...

For those that live in the wild possibly . Those that live in society must follow moral codes.
 
DVSentinel said:
You either get Universal or you get quality healthcare, the two do not exist, nor can they exist at the same time. While not a complete oxymoron like freedom in a socialist society, they do have a tendency to cancel each other out.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much false. You have no reason to believe that and the plethora of first world countries that have UHC prove your statement false.
 
Lokiate said:
Or pay lip service to moral codes, picking and choosing as they please, while hiding what they really think from the rest of the populace.
Click to expand...

I would say some more so than others, and it beats living on your own in the wild, which is why you find very few living on their own in the wild.
 
Right or privilege suggests that there's any reason for people not to have the best possible healthcare. Public health isn't a matter of whether or not a person is entitled to it. It is a social imperative to produce the best possible nation.
 
Lokiate said:
A lot of people live in the wild. LA has a population of over 100,000 people.
Click to expand...

Glad you clarified what you consider to be living independent of society. :cool:
 
Misterveritis said:
I see your problem. You and Catawba believe everyone is already a slave
Click to expand...
What?
Are you just straight up pulling **** out of your ass again?

. Here I am objecting to becoming a slave when you believe I am your slave already.

Disgusting.
Click to expand...

What?:shock:
No one called you a slave or that we are slaves. Dude have you gone off your rocker?
 
DVSentinel said:
You either get Universal or you get quality healthcare, the two do not exist, nor can they exist at the same time.
Click to expand...
:lamo
Your kidding right?
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study | Reuters
World Health Organization ranking of health systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper28.pdf
"Although studies findings go in both directions, the bulk of the research finds higher quality of care in Canada." (And they have socialized medicine). http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411947_ushealthcare_quality.pdf
U.S. Ranks Last Among Seven Countries on Health System Performance Based on Measures of Quality, Efficiency, Access, Equity, and Healthy Lives - The Commonwealth Fund



While not a complete oxymoron like freedom in a socialist society, they do have a tendency to cancel each other out.
Click to expand...
:doh:roll:
Yep socialism is against freedom we all know it :roll:
 
Lokiate said:
I've had the misfortune of living in that **** hole. It really is "the jungle".
Click to expand...

I thought living in the wild as an individual without societal moral codes is what you were advocating???
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo
Your kidding right?
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study | Reuters
World Health Organization ranking of health systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper28.pdf
"Although studies findings go in both directions, the bulk of the research finds higher quality of care in Canada." (And they have socialized medicine). http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411947_ushealthcare_quality.pdf
U.S. Ranks Last Among Seven Countries on Health System Performance Based on Measures of Quality, Efficiency, Access, Equity, and Healthy Lives - The Commonwealth Fund




:doh:roll:
Yep socialism is against freedom we all know it :roll:
Click to expand...


I have to say I do get quality health care some of the best in the world. Did it drive me broke? Yep, so my quality of life has suffered tremendously because of that. Morbidity is a word every neeeds to learn in this current debate.
 
Lokiate said:
Natural Law isn't exclusive to nature. It's very prevalent in society.
Click to expand...

I guess we'll get to see this year how prevalent your "natural law" is in society, when people go to the polls to choose between a continuation of health benefits for our senors vs a continuation of the tax cuts for the rich.
 
Catawba said:
I guess we'll get to see this year how prevalent your "natural law" is in society, when people go to the polls to choose between a continuation of health benefits for our senors vs a continuation of the tax cuts for the rich.
Click to expand...

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've stated here.
 
winston53660 said:
I have to say I do get quality health care some of the best in the world.
Click to expand...
No one is saying its not good. I was responding to the comment that you cant have UHC and quality healthcare at the same time. Numerous reports, and analysis have proven this a huck of **** claim.

Did it drive me broke?
Click to expand...
Thats a damn shame.

Yep, so my quality of life has suffered tremendously because of that.
Click to expand...
Good for you.
 
Aberration said:
And none of us chose for them to have disabilities either. How does them not choosing to have the disability make the rest of society responsible for their misfortune?

My beliefs hold me to support them also. My beliefs also hold me not to compel another to do so.
Click to expand...

Those "beliefs" about supporting the unfortunate have never amounted to a hill of beans so we have moved on to more effective ways to really help people. That should delight a man of you "beliefs.
 
Lokiate said:
Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've stated here.
Click to expand...

You Don't like that choice huh.
How about 16 million insured getting checks totaling $1.1 Billion from their insurance companies for gouging them on premiums. Along with the checks will be a note saying this is because ObamaCares. Sweet huh?


Under The Affordable Care Act insurers are required to spend a certain portion of their premiums on care instead of administrative costs. If they do not they must refund the difference. The nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation has projected refunds would total about $1.3 billion and go to roughly 16 million people who buy their own policies or get them through an employer.
Kaiser estimates checks would range from an average of $72 for those with insurance through a large employer to an average of $127 for those who bought individual policies.
Rules finalized by the Department of Health and Human Services on Friday tell insurers that the following text must be put in a letter to beneficiaries who receive a rebate:
“This letter is to inform you that you will receive a rebate of a portion of your health insurance premiums. This rebate is required by the Affordable Care Act-the health reform law.”
Click to expand...
Read more at Insurers Must Credit Obamacare When Isuing Rebate Checks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom