• 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!

Are you willing...

Are you willing to be fined for simply living?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 2 12.5%

  • No.

    Votes: 10 62.5%

  • Don't care one way or the other. IT'S HEALTH INSURENCE!!!

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • Total voters
    16
Ethereal said:
That's perfectly fine. Anyone who does not purchase health insurance will just be denied care, no matter what. That way they can die on the streets knowing they saved a couple hundred bucks. Not that I approve of any type of UHC but I understand the rationale behind mandating health insurance.
Click to expand...

That would require mandating who doctors can and cannot treat in their own private practice, which would be a violation of their business rights.
 
Ethereal said:
That's perfectly fine. Anyone who does not purchase health insurance will just be denied care, no matter what. That way they can die on the streets knowing they saved a couple hundred bucks. Not that I approve of any type of UHC but I understand the rationale behind mandating health insurance.
Click to expand...

Actually, in my "opt out" plan, that is precisely what I am suggesting. I keep hearing about personal responsibility, and "the government doesn't have the right to tell ME I have to have health insurance." Fine. If there is a government plan, and you opt out of it (not paying the tax that would be applied to it), and don't buy private health insurance, if you have a catastrophic illness and cannot afford to pay for it, NO government subsidy. Personal responsibility and all.
 
rivrrat said:
That would require mandating who doctors can and cannot treat in their own private practice, which would be a violation of their business rights.
Click to expand...

Actually, it wouldn't. A business owner does not have to provide a service if the customer cannot pay.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, it wouldn't. A business owner does not have to provide a service if the customer cannot pay.
Click to expand...

Of course they don't. He implied that the government wouldn't ALLOW them to be treated. That's how I took it anyway. (His words "no matter what" keyed me to that assumption)

I fully agree that docs should be allowed to screen their own patients and refuse care to whomever they wish.

I've had a doc refuse care to me when I HAD insurance (BECAUSE I had insurance). And, I've had a doc refuse care when I did not have insurance. There's always another doc. /shrug
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
Of course they don't. He implied that the government wouldn't ALLOW them to be treated. That's how I took it anyway. (His words "no matter what" keyed me to that assumption)

I fully agree that docs should be allowed to screen their own patients and refuse care to whomever they wish.

I've had a doc refuse care to me when I HAD insurance (BECAUSE I had insurance). And, I've had a doc refuse care when I did not have insurance. There's always another doc. /shrug
Click to expand...

And if a doctor wants to treat you without receiving payment, that's on him/her. Same as a hospital. What I am suggesting is that no longer will there be regulations requiring any charity care, and no longer will the government subsidize ANY healthcare that is not covered or paid for, regardless of situation.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And if a doctor wants to treat you without receiving payment, that's on him/her. Same as a hospital. What I am suggesting is that no longer will there be regulations requiring any charity care, and no longer will the government subsidize ANY healthcare that is not covered or paid for, regardless of situation.
Click to expand...

Should have been that way from the get go.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And if a doctor wants to treat you without receiving payment, that's on him/her. Same as a hospital. What I am suggesting is that no longer will there be regulations requiring any charity care, and no longer will the government subsidize ANY healthcare that is not covered or paid for, regardless of situation.
Click to expand...

CC for president? You have my vote. :2wave:
 
I'm a poor person. I would easily qualify for Obama's HCP. But I don't want it. I do believe in personal responsibility and have always paid all my bills without insurence. Yes it does take me time to pay off big bills like hospital bills. But I DO pay them.

Tell me CC, under your idea how would one such as me be treated? No insurence, no credit (I pay for everything in cash) yet pays any and all bills unfailingly no matter how long it takes.

Going by my credit score only would more than likely immediately disqualify me as I have no credit.

No insurence...well guess no service then.

Yet I'm willing and capable of paying off my bills, even if they do take time to pay off.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm a poor person. I would easily qualify for Obama's HCP. But I don't want it. I do believe in personal responsibility and have always paid all my bills without insurence. Yes it does take me time to pay off big bills like hospital bills. But I DO pay them.

Tell me CC, under your idea how would one such as me be treated? No insurence, no credit (I pay for everything in cash) yet pays any and all bills unfailingly no matter how long it takes.

Going by my credit score only would more than likely immediately disqualify me as I have no credit.

No insurence...well guess no service then.

Yet I'm willing and capable of paying off my bills, even if they do take time to pay off.
Click to expand...

You have two choices. Pay for the healthcare that you need/want, or pay into the government plan. You may not want the government plan, but why should it be the government's responsibility to pay for your health care when you had options, and just choose not to utilize them?

The plan that I am proposing is a personal responsibility plan. You don't like government healthcare? Fine. You have other choices. But if you do not choose them, do not come crying to the government to pay for your healthcare. I wonder how much money the government would save if MY idea was part of the plan?
 
intresting subject, anyone having problems linking to social groups? hmmmm
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
CC for president? You have my vote. :2wave:
Click to expand...

My idea is a great mesh between liberal government assistance, and conservative personal responsibility. Truly bipartisan. And like I said in my other post. I wonder how much money it would save the government if the government no longer subsidized ANY healthcare for persons who had a choice but decided not to use it?
 
SgtRock said:
intresting subject, anyone having problems linking to social groups? hmmmm
Click to expand...

An interlude. vauge thought he fixed it and is on it. He's been busy with overall server maintenance this weekend. I'll remind him. :mrgreen:
 
Ethereal said:
Fine, then you agree people who lack health insurance should be summarily denied treatment regardless of the circumstances? Unless, of course, you were planning on having your health care and eating it too?
Click to expand...

No part of this conversation was, is, or ever will be about emergency care.

Let's be clear on that.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, in my "opt out" plan, that is precisely what I am suggesting. I keep hearing about personal responsibility, and "the government doesn't have the right to tell ME I have to have health insurance." Fine. If there is a government plan, and you opt out of it (not paying the tax that would be applied to it), and don't buy private health insurance, if you have a catastrophic illness and cannot afford to pay for it, NO government subsidy. Personal responsibility and all.
Click to expand...

Although you pinpointed the ideological issue I was trying to identify, I would not support such a policy in reality.

Refusing people immediate, life-saving treatment is not an option, even if they acted totally irresponsibly by opting out of government health insurance (which I DO NOT support in the first place) AND refusing to purchase private insurance.

Are we really going to entertain the idea of letting a gun-shot victim expire in a hospital because they don't have insurance? I say, if society must subsidize the costs of certain kinds of health care then people who force such costs upon society should be held civilly and perhaps criminally liable. You'll recieve the treatment but once you're better you might:

a. Owe lots of money - the irony of even being alive to pay us back notwithstanding.

b. Face charges of criminal negligence. This would be prudent if:

1. The person is incapable or unwilling to pay back the funds.

2. The person was injured as a consequence of risky or irrational behavior.

I SUPPOSE if people really wanted to, they could be given the option of refusing treatment in the ER. They'll be dead but at least the won't be in debt or dead, right?
 
My health insurance is far to expensive. I used to use the Veterans Administration for my healthcare. I am now paying over $400 a month and we are being told to expect an increase this fall. Something has got to be done. How about tort reform. Maybe if doctors wern't being sued so much malpractice insurance wouldn't be so expensive for them.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
Although you pinpointed the ideological issue I was trying to identify, I would not support such a policy in reality.

Refusing people immediate, life-saving treatment is not an option, even if they acted totally irresponsibly by opting out of government health insurance (which I DO NOT support in the first place) AND refusing to purchase private insurance.
Click to expand...

Why not?

Are we really going to entertain the idea of letting a gun-shot victim expire in a hospital because they don't have insurance? I say, if society must subsidize the costs of certain kinds of health care then people who force such costs upon society should be held civilly and perhaps criminally liable. You'll recieve the treatment but once you're better you might:

a. Owe lots of money - the irony of even being alive to pay us back notwithstanding.

b. Face charges of criminal negligence. This would be prudent if:

1. The person is incapable or unwilling to pay back the funds.

2. The person was injured as a consequence of risky or irrational behavior.

I SUPPOSE if people really wanted to, they could be given the option of refusing treatment in the ER. They'll be dead but at least the won't be in debt or dead, right?
Click to expand...

I would submit that those folks who would make the kinds of irresponsible choices we are discussing would, in reality, NEVER be able to pay back the money. OK, so we jail them. So? The government still has to handle the debt. Let private charities set up funds for folks like this.
 
Jerry said:
No part of this conversation was, is, or ever will be about emergency care.

Let's be clear on that.
Click to expand...

So, just to clarify, you don't believe the government should mandate health insurance but you expect the government to pay for your emergency treatment regardless of whether or not you've purchased insurance? Is that correct?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You have two choices. Pay for the healthcare that you need/want, or pay into the government plan. You may not want the government plan, but why should it be the government's responsibility to pay for your health care when you had options, and just choose not to utilize them?

The plan that I am proposing is a personal responsibility plan. You don't like government healthcare? Fine. You have other choices. But if you do not choose them, do not come crying to the government to pay for your healthcare. I wonder how much money the government would save if MY idea was part of the plan?
Click to expand...

Why should I have to pay into something when I am quite willing to pay the bills myself? Say I had a heart attack tonight. (BO's HCP already being in effect..or yours) you would refuse treatment to me just because I don't have some kind of insurence? Even though I would be quite willing to pay the bill myself?

You say that your plan is about personal responsibility but when you have someone that actually does take personal responsibility for their bills you are quite willing to refuse treatment to them just because they opted out of health insurence. That is not a plan that is based on personal responsibility. That is a plan based on punishment for not having health insurence.
 
Ethereal said:
So, just to clarify, you don't believe the government should mandate health insurance but you expect the government to pay for your emergency treatment regardless of whether or not you've purchased insurance? Is that correct?
Click to expand...

No I expect them to mail me the bill.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Why should I have to pay into something when I am quite willing to pay the bills myself? Say I had a heart attack tonight. (BO's HCP already being in effect..or yours) you would refuse treatment to me just because I don't have some kind of insurence? Even though I would be quite willing to pay the bill myself?

You say that your plan is about personal responsibility but when you have someone that actually does take personal responsibility for their bills you are quite willing to refuse treatment to them just because they opted out of health insurence. That is not a plan that is based on personal responsibility. That is a plan based on punishment for not having health insurence.
Click to expand...

You seemed to have missed part of my argument. If you have healthcare needs, under my plan, you would have 3 options:

1) the governmental plan.
2) a purchased private insurance.
3) personal payment.

You seem to be opting for #3. Nothing wrong with that. However, like I said, if you cannot pay, the government will not subsidize your healthcare.
 
Ethereal said:
So, just to clarify, you don't believe the government should mandate health insurance but you expect the government to pay for your emergency treatment regardless of whether or not you've purchased insurance? Is that correct?
Click to expand...

I don't expect the government to pay ****. Like Jerry, I expect the hospital to send me a bill. Which they have always done.

But no hospital can know if you have insurance or not, or what your ability to pay is while you're laying bleeding to death, unconscious on a gurney. Thus, life saving emergency care isn't really in the equation.

However, I do fully support any doctor and hospital's right to deny services to anyone for any reason.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You seemed to have missed part of my argument. If you have healthcare needs, under my plan, you would have 3 options:

1) the governmental plan.
2) a purchased private insurance.
3) personal payment.

You seem to be opting for #3. Nothing wrong with that. However, like I said, if you cannot pay, the government will not subsidize your healthcare.
Click to expand...

Guess I did. Sort of. One question just to make sure.

Would you be willing to accept payments? Sorry but it kinda sounds like you want them to pay in full asap.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Me to. I want to pay my bills. I don't want the government to pay my bills. I don't want to be beholden to them or anyone else.
Click to expand...

Yup, and I'm sorry to have to cut people like Ethereal off, but this is not about denying anyone emergency treatment.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

Because it's barbaric. Doctors shouldn't be fishing through an unconscious man's wallet in order to get his insurance information.

I would submit that those folks who would make the kinds of irresponsible choices we are discussing would, in reality, NEVER be able to pay back the money. OK, so we jail them. So?
Click to expand...

Knowing you could face jail time for receiving free health care is a strong incentive to purchase insurance; this avoids having to mandate it.

The government still has to handle the debt. Let private charities set up funds for folks like this.
Click to expand...

I agree, private charities should be the main pillar of health care, but in a plan such as the one I outline people must be held responsible for failing to protect themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom