• 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
Stop sipping the koolaid and take a REAL look at RomneyCare, paying particular attention to its REAL costs, and continued abuses (temporary use of coverege and continued free ER care use) when put into actual pratice. It is easy to make generalizations and rosy predictions, even tosay the two are the same, but to deny reality, takes true partisanship.

Link: Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He supported the mandate and you support him. Am I wrong about that?
 
As Mitt Romney and Barack Obama says, personal healthcare should be a mandate. Mitt Romney likes mandates. Can't dog out Obamacare without dogging out Romney too.

Here's the funny part. Rightwingnuts hate Obamacare. But you never hear much out of them regarding Romneycare, which is a spitting image of Obamacare. This is all just partisan hackery.

Here's one for the rightwingers. Watch and cringe. Mitt Obama..er...Romney at the 2008 GOP New Hampshire debates.

Even without Romney care, Mitt is unpopular with conservatives. Just goes to show that the fringe isn't controlling the party. The Republicans aren't conservative enough on fiscal issues.
 
He supported the mandate and you support him. Am I wrong about that?

I don't support EITHER, but am an ABO voter none the less. You see, yet you refuse to believe, that takes a special brand of moron. Obama blames the "Obama" tax rates used by Bush, yet keeps them, doubles the deficit, lowers the SS payroll taxes and pretends to save money, by passing PPACA that raises taxes but calls that saving money. When asked what in PPACA saves any REAL medical care costs (overall), YOU folks are silent yet the entire purpose was said to be to save money, NOT to simply redistribute income. Hmm...
 
I don't support EITHER, but am an ABO voter none the less. You see, yet you refuse to believe, that takes a special brand of moron. Obama blames the "Obama" tax rates used by Bush, yet keeps them, doubles the deficit, lowers the SS payroll taxes and pretends to save money, by passing PPACA that raises taxes but calls that saving money. When asked what in PPACA saves any REAL medical care costs (overall), YOU folks are silent yet the entire purpose was said to be to save money, NOT to simply redistribute income. Hmm...

You largely miss the actual arguments. You also can't seem to distinquish between political rhethoric both sides use and actual arguments.

As for taxes, no, you pay no tax unless you refuse to be insured. So, a general tax has not been passed. You're misrepresnting the issue for partisan reasons, as best I can tell.

Also, I have not been silent. I have answered you. You have not replied back that I know of. But I have answered you.
 
That's actually not the position of the GOP, the party diverges along two ideologies actually, there is a constitutionalist wing and a wing that is almost liberal in it's desire for more government than the founders envisioned(though less than many Democrats). It's split between the old guard and the new conservatives from the south. What Republicans tend to be against are expansions without a definitive fit to the necessary and proper standard, it isn't about "screw the poor".

In reality, Republicans tend to infight and shoot themselves in the foot too long to get a unified and coherent message of where the party stands and end up looking like they are spineless and stupied. Both Republican and conservative Democrats when being honest agree on the real fixes, but no one has the political will to do it. The fixes are incredibly difficult and there are about three major lobbies on either side of the aisle to contend with.





Alot of truth to your post...but tell me exactly what the republican plan has been in lieu of Obamacare aside from a big fat NO and we will repeal it
 
I don't want to subject Americans to anything - they are big and ugly enough to make their own decisions. I am simply pointing out the principles by which Universal Health Care is operated in the rest of the developed world, and wondering why systems which have stood the test of time for over half a century elsewhere, should be such a challenge for the wealthiest, most powerful, nation on earth. :)

It's only a challenge for people who think debt matters and that we can't spend increasing amounts of money indefinitely without consequence. For people who think money and public credit has no limits, nothing is a challenge... everything becomes really simple. The belief in these universal medical care entitlements is rooted in the failure to recognize the limits of public credit and the eventual risks of inflation.

Medicare, for example, has been around for almost 50 years now. That does not change a thing about the havoc it's wreaking on the country financially, even though you could point to its longevity and allege it's stood "the test of time."
 
Last edited:
You largely miss the actual arguments. You also can't seem to distinquish between political rhethoric both sides use and actual arguments.

As for taxes, no, you pay no tax unless you refuse to be insured. So, a general tax has not been passed.

A new, previously unconstitutional type f tax has just been established by the SCOTUS.
 
A new, previously unconstitutional type f tax has just been established by the SCOTUS.

Hardly. The court has ruled on that. I will never understand why people always react to answers they don't like this way.
 
You are completely free except those chains?

And which chains might those be. Don't be shy - I'm a Brit, we can take it. Just point out the freedoms you enjoy that we do not - let the chips fall where they may. Or can you not actually find any? :lol:

Absolutely! I person stays healthy and has to pay for others unhealthy lifestyles? Merely because they are wealthy. That is certainly a penalty. (even the healthcare law says its a penalty). Police and fire are local functions not the federal government. National defense is part of the Constitution of the United States. Health Care...not so much.

I don't know how many times I need to make this point - but I am discussing the topic as designated - Health Care; Privilege, Right or Responsibility. I am not discussing the Constitution of the United States, or the health care laws of the US, nor am I concerned with the distinctions of your state and federal legislation. If the topic had been designated Health Care in the USA, these matters might have had some relevance.

The need for medical attention across the world is not dictated by deliberate unhealthy lifestyles, nor do I believe this is so in the USA (despite your level of obesity). Disease, accidents, genetic abnormalities, all require medical intervention. To argue that the healthy at any given point in time are being penalised by contributing to a medical system which provides for the entire citizenry, simply makes no sense. Given that the social contract requires us all to contribute, via taxation, to the welfare of society in which we live, how can you logically argue this?
 
It's only a challenge for people who think debt matters and that we can't spend increasing amounts of money indefinitely without consequence. For people who think money and public credit has no limits, nothing is a challenge... everything becomes really simple. The belief in these universal medical care entitlements is rooted in the failure to recognize the limits of public credit and the eventual risks of inflation.

Medicare, for example, has been around for almost 50 years now. That does not change a thing about the havoc it's wreaking on the country financially, even though you could point to its longevity and allege it's stood "the test of time."

I repeat, I am not simply addressing the American situation, your systems, or your national finances. I am addressing the OP as designated, and in the conceptual sense.
 
You largely miss the actual arguments. You also can't seem to distinquish between political rhethoric both sides use and actual arguments.

As for taxes, no, you pay no tax unless you refuse to be insured. So, a general tax has not been passed. You're misrepresnting the issue for partisan reasons, as best I can tell.

Also, I have not been silent. I have answered you. You have not replied back that I know of. But I have answered you.

You don't consider a government mandate to purchase something a tax?
 
And which chains might those be. Don't be shy - I'm a Brit, we can take it. Just point out the freedoms you enjoy that we do not - let the chips fall where they may. Or can you not actually find any? :lol:
You answer it in the initial question you asked. The right to keep and bear arms. You basically stated, except this huge and obvious thing, what freedoms do you Americans enjoy?

I don't know how many times I need to make this point - but I am discussing the topic as designated - Health Care; Privilege, Right or Responsibility. I am not discussing the Constitution of the United States, or the health care laws of the US, nor am I concerned with the distinctions of your state and federal legislation. If the topic had been designated Health Care in the USA, these matters might have had some relevance.
Then don't ask questions about Police and Firefighter which is what I was answering. Don't ask an off topic question and then complained because you are given an off topic answer.

The need for medical attention across the world is not dictated by deliberate unhealthy lifestyles, nor do I believe this is so in the USA (despite your level of obesity). Disease, accidents, genetic abnormalities, all require medical intervention. To argue that the healthy at any given point in time are being penalised by contributing to a medical system which provides for the entire citizenry, simply makes no sense. Given that the social contract requires us all to contribute, via taxation, to the welfare of society in which we live, how can you logically argue this?

"the social contract" which Social contract would that be? Where I live (The United States) the only taxing authority I am subject to the the United States Government, my state, and my county. These entities have only limited authority to tax me and Healthcare is not one of those enumerated items. So what exactly are you talking about?
 
I repeat, I am not simply addressing the American situation, your systems, or your national finances. I am addressing the OP as designated, and in the conceptual sense.

So how is it that one person can be guaranteed a right to something that can ONLY be provided by another person.
 
So how is it that one person can be guaranteed a right to something that can ONLY be provided by another person.

See my comments about the social contract (which exists in all societies, whether you subscribe to the notion or not). The US is no different from any other society governed by the rule of law, and taxation remains the price of civilisation. :)
 
You don't consider a government mandate to purchase something a tax?

The penlty is a tax.

I consider you buying insurance your personal responsibility, and if you don't do it, passing your error in judgment on to the rest of us, I think you should be penalized. ;)
 
The penlty is a tax.

I consider you buying insurance your personal responsibility, and if you don't do it, passing your error in judgment on to the rest of us, I think you should be penalized. ;)

Personally I don't care if it is a penalty or a tax. It is going to happen either way. Like with social security.
 
Personally I don't care if it is a penalty or a tax. It is going to happen either way. Like with social security.

Well, the aprtisan is going to beat the tax drum to death, and then beat it some more. This is what we pass as political debate today.

I still hope they will go back to work and more toward something better; if not UHC (single payer hybred), at least a public option.
 
Well, the aprtisan is going to beat the tax drum to death, and then beat it some more. This is what we pass as political debate today.

I still hope they will go back to work and more toward something better; if not UHC (single payer hybred), at least a public option.

That is all PPACA is, as there is no private option. PPACA converts all "private" medical care insurance into the public "option", since NO plan may NOT offer the new mandated minimum and maximum benefits, may not charge premiums based on risk (outside of the new and LIMITTED age and smoking factors) and may not limit out of pocket costs.

We all KNOW that medical care is NOW about 18% of GDP, yet between 2% and 9.5% of income may be charged as insurance premiums. You can not make a $100 medical care procedure magically cost $50 by simply mandating it, as medicare and medicaid pretend to do. What other "private" business is told that they MUST accept some non-paying customers and to simply eat those costs or spread them among their paying customers?

PPACA is pure accounting magic and wishfull thinking. We are told to simply believe that adding 15% more customers, most of them not paying anything at all, to the same number of care providers will lower the costs of all users of medical care AND not diminish the quality/quantity of care for all. Nobody will look at the REAL results of RomneyCare in MA and see that simple reality; calling all people insured does NOT make them so. Yes he did!
 
The penlty is a tax.

I consider you buying insurance your personal responsibility, and if you don't do it, passing your error in judgment on to the rest of us, I think you should be penalized. ;)

You SAY that yet likely do not DO that. Pretending that what your employer bought (plus many more "free" mandates) will do someone with NO job, or extra income, to pay the co-pay or deductable amounts will "help" them is pure fantasy. This is why many providers will NOT accept medicaid or medicare patients NOW. That will be the NEXT mandate, that ALL providers accept all "patients" whether they pay or not, just like ER facilities must now do. Even federal employees pay only 25% of their own medical care insurance premiums out of their taxable pay. Pretending that 9.5% of your taxable pay covers ALL of your medical care costs does not make it so, yet some, at the lowest end, will pay no more than 2% under PPACA; just where do you think that the rest of that bill will fall?
 
Well, the aprtisan is going to beat the tax drum to death, and then beat it some more. This is what we pass as political debate today.

I still hope they will go back to work and more toward something better; if not UHC (single payer hybred), at least a public option.

The "tax" word is merely a buzz word. An Andy Worhalism.
 
The penlty is a tax.

I consider you buying insurance your personal responsibility, and if you don't do it, passing your error in judgment on to the rest of us, I think you should be penalized. ;)

So is the mandate to purchase insurance. Government mandating "you must spend money" is a tax.
 
See my comments about the social contract (which exists in all societies, whether you subscribe to the notion or not). The US is no different from any other society governed by the rule of law, and taxation remains the price of civilisation. :)

You have given no explanation of this imaginary social contract you speak of. Is it governed by trolls or unicorns?
 
So is the mandate to purchase insurance. Government mandating "you must spend money" is a tax.

Of course a gov't mandate is a tax, yet the left considers MOST of them to be "needed" and just, even the EPA regualtions that tax new coal fired power plants out of existance (a 100% tax rate?). The left is all gaga about UHC and socialized medicine, yet ignores the reality of its true cost; medical care is 1/6 of GDP, federal taxation NOW is about that, so without added taxation it is IMPOSSIBLE to add 15% to 20% more patients to it. Mandates of added medical benefits, at NO out of pocket costs, are indeed a tax on all that pay medical care insurance premiums, as neither the insurance company nor the care providers can be simply "ordered" to give this care away.

For food assistance we do not mandate that the grocer simply give SOME food away, and make up for that with higher prices for all (that are expected to pay), yet that is EXACTLY what PPACA and the "free" ER care mandates do. One need only take a quick Wikipedia tour and examine the "outcome" findings (last section) for RomneyCare in MA to see that PPACA will neither lower "free" ER use nor cut the costs of care; the federal gov't is NOW bailing out MA to keep that state system from collapsing and exposing this myth.
 
Agreed. Every social program in the country is going broke. Yet we strive to add more to the mix? After 2014 we will be wondering where we are going to get the money to pay for all the healthcare that is being provided. Wonder if China is going to be open for loans. Maybe Russia?
 
Back
Top Bottom