• 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
rivrrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

And a hospital can ask to see your insurance card. And a hospital can ask for payment at the time of service, or a deposit prior to treatment. And if you have no insurance, cannot pay at the time of service, or even place a deposit, then the hospital should have the right to refuse to serve you. Government assistance in these cases should not be an option. If the hospital chooses to treat you without an expectation of payment, that's their business. Of course if they go bankrupt for doing this, there should be no government bailout, either.
 
Jerry said:
No I expect them to mail me the bill.
Click to expand...

What happens if you can't pay for it? How do you repay your debt to society? Jail time? Sounds good to me.
 
blah blah blah. How about tort reform as a means to lower malpractice insurance. Wouldn't that help to reduce the cost of healthcare? blah blah blah
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would depend on the individual business. Some expect payment at the time of service. Some are willing to do some sort of payment plan. However, defaulting on something like this would affect one's credit rating, significantly, and might preclude ANY medical practitioner from allowing personal payment again. One reason this country, and so many people are in debt, is they think that if they don't pay, in the long run there will either be no consequences, or the consequences will be minimal. And that they can keep doing the behavior. This needs to change.
 
rivrrat said:
I don't expect the government to pay ****. Like Jerry, I expect the hospital to send me a bill. Which they have always done.
Click to expand...

What happens if you can't pay for it?

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.
Click to expand...

I know, I've never honestly suggested that people could or should be denied emergency life saving treatment. I was merely posing an ideological question to Kor and Jerry.

However, I do fully support any doctor and hospital's right to deny services to anyone for any reason.
Click to expand...

So, a child is brought to a private practice with life-threatening injuries, the doctors can just refuse treatment?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And a hospital can ask to see your insurance card. And a hospital can ask for payment at the time of service, or a deposit prior to treatment.
Click to expand...
While you're unconscious?

If you're conscious, sure. They already do that anyway.

And if you have no insurance, cannot pay at the time of service, or even place a deposit, then the hospital should have the right to refuse to serve you. Government assistance in these cases should not be an option. If the hospital chooses to treat you without an expectation of payment, that's their business. Of course if they go bankrupt for doing this, there should be no government bailout, either.
Click to expand...
LOL You're preaching to the choir here, babe.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
What happens if you can't pay for it?
Click to expand...
Same thing that happens when you fault on any other debt.

So, a child is brought to a private practice with life-threatening injuries, the doctors can just refuse treatment?
Click to expand...
Any private business should be allowed to refuse service to any person for any reason.
 
Ethereal said:
Because it's barbaric. Doctors shouldn't be fishing through an unconscious man's wallet in order to get his insurance information.
Click to expand...

The police do this regularly for identification purposes. Flipping to another card would not be much of a stretch

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

So, you are in favor of the proposed fines that I've been reading about on this forum for those who do not purchase health care? I am surprised.

In truth, I don't think this is as much of a deterrent as you might think. If the possibility of jailtime was THAT much of a deterrent, we wouldn't have so many breaking the law and going to jail. People tend not to think they will get caught, or that the consequences won't happen to them.

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.
Click to expand...

Yup. This gets the government out of doing this, and creates personal responsibility for folks.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's a wonderful compromise.

I'd add that you can't bankrupt out of medical bills, considering they may have saved your life.
 
SgtRock said:
blah blah blah. How about tort reform as a means to lower malpractice insurance. Wouldn't that help to reduce the cost of healthcare? blah blah blah
Click to expand...

Of course this should be there also. As should be the ability to sue insurance companies for refusing to authorize the use of benefits that are in a member's plan.
 
I guess thats was a stupid idea. Heres an idea, we could euthanize all terminal patients. And for those who refuse the government plan. Just let them die, if they don't want to get with the program thats there own fault.
 
SgtRock said:
blah blah blah. How about tort reform as a means to lower malpractice insurance. Wouldn't that help to reduce the cost of healthcare? blah blah blah
Click to expand...

I don't think that in necessary because the amount of doctors are declining and the real way to fix it is lift the AMA controlling how many doctors are licensed each year.

More doctors make more premium payers which should lower the insurance rates.
 
rivrrat said:
While you're unconscious?

If you're conscious, sure. They already do that anyway.
Click to expand...

If you are unconscious, I suppose finding out who you are would be a good first step. If that is not possible, or one's ability to pay is indeterminate, it is up to the hospital/doctor whether they want to take the risk. If they say no, then no it is.


LOL You're preaching to the choir here, babe.
Click to expand...

I know. Just clarifying. :mrgreen:
 
SgtRock said:
I guess thats was a stupid idea. Heres an idea, we could euthanize all terminal patients. And for those who refuse the government plan. Just let them die, if they don't want to get with the program thats there own fault.
Click to expand...

Or...the could buy their own insurance. Or...the could pay for the service out of pocket. Folks would have choices.
 
rivrrat said:
Same thing that happens when you fault on any other debt.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean not pay a damn thing? Where does that leave the tax payers you forced into paying for your treatment?

Any private business should be allowed to refuse service to any person for any reason.
Click to expand...

Basically, no individual has any moral obligation to anyone, ever?
 
Ethereal said:
Because it's barbaric. Doctors shouldn't be fishing through an unconscious man's wallet in order to get his insurance information.
Click to expand...
Emergency personnel already do this to identify someone, find next of kin, get blood type, find out about medical conditions, etc.

However, a person may or may not have a wallet on them OR may or may not have their insurance card on them.


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



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.
Click to expand...

All insurance should be eliminated. No need to 'protect oneself'
 
Ethereal said:
What happens if you can't pay for it?
Click to expand...

The hospital will eventually sell my debt to a collection agency.

Ethereal said:
How do you repay your debt to society?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't owe "society" anything.

I would owe a hospital first, then perhaps a collection agency, then a different collection agency if the first sold my debt, and again, and again....

Ethereal said:
Jail time?
Click to expand...

Well they could sue me, but you don't go to jail over civil matters. If they got a judgment they could place a lean on my property, garnish my wages, etc.

This is all assuming I couldn't reach a settlement.
 
Ethereal said:
Oh, you mean not pay a damn thing?
Click to expand...
If you hire someone do something for you, and they do it and you don't pay them, what happens? They take you to court.

Where does that leave the tax payers you forced into paying for your treatment?
Click to expand...
Why do the taxpayers have to be involved? We're talking about a private business who extended a line of credit. Nothing more. No government involvement necessary.

Basically, no individual has any moral obligation to anyone, ever?
Click to expand...
Of course not. The only "moral obligation" anyone has to anyone else is the one they decide for themselves.

The free market will take care of it. If you found out a hospital or doctor is letting people die on their steps, are you going to use their services? Do you think many others will?
 
Ethereal said:
So, a child is brought to a private practice with life-threatening injuries, the doctors can just refuse treatment?
Click to expand...

No part of any respectable, constructive conversation is about emergency care.
 
The thing is, people without health insurance are costing those who have it a great deal because most necessary medical procedures, doctors are legally required to carry out whether the patient is covered or not. Often the patient cannot pay, and the cost is shifted towards those with insurance.

However, fining those people without insurance only makes sense if there exists a free government plan competing with the private ones. It wouldn't look very good to fine people who can't even afford health insurance.
 
rivrrat said:
Emergency personnel already do this to identify someone, find next of kin, get blood type, find out about medical conditions, etc.
Click to expand...

Do they delay life-saving treatment until they locate these things?

All insurance should be eliminated. No need to 'protect oneself'
Click to expand...

Eliminate insurance? How?

rivrrat said:
Of course not. The only "moral obligation" anyone has to anyone else is the one they decide for themselves.
Click to expand...

So, if you are in a room with five men and one of them proceeds to rape you the other four men have no obligation whatsoever to assist you?

Jerry said:
The hospital will eventually sell my debt to a collection agency.
Click to expand...

You CANNOT pay. What collection agency is going to purchase that debt, or even a fraction of it? It's a massive, unfunded liability.

I wouldn't owe "society" anything.

I would owe a hospital first, then perhaps a collection agency, then a different collection agency if the first sold my debt, and again, and again....
Click to expand...

No private business could assume the financial burdens of providing free emergency care to consumers - society would inevitably incur the costs.

Well they could sue me, but you don't go to jail over civil matters. If they got a judgment they could place a lean on my property, garnish my wages, etc.
Click to expand...

That's fine. If your house and car will cover it then they will cover it. But what hapens if you do not possess the assets necessary to cover the costs?

Jerry said:
No part of any respectable, constructive conversation is about emergency care.
Click to expand...

I wasn't asking you.
 
Ethereal said:
Do they delay life-saving treatment until they locate these things?
Click to expand...
Not in my experience, no. We found the info we could on the ambulance and conveyed it to the hospital staff upon arrival.

Eliminate insurance? How?
Click to expand...
I dunno how, I just know it needs to be done. Insurance combined with government bull**** is why prices go up and up and up. Eliminate those influences and prices drop.

So, if you are in a room with five men and one of them proceeds to rape you the other four men have no obligation whatsoever to assist you?
Click to expand...
Why would they have any innate obligation to help me? They would only have an obligation if THEY feel they have an obligation.

You CANNOT pay. What collection agency is going to purchase that debt, or even a fraction of it? It's a massive, unfunded liability.
Click to expand...
Collection agencies take on massive debts all the time. Courts can take away assets and garnish wages too.

No private business could assume the financial burdens of providing free emergency care to consumers - society would inevitably incur the costs.
Click to expand...
Obviously, if they make bad business decisions and are unable to stay out of the red, then they should close up shop and let another, better run business take their place.

That's fine. If your house and car will cover it then they will cover it. But what hapens if you do not possess the assets necessary to cover the costs?
Click to expand...
The same thing that happens any other time someone incurs a debt and doesn't pay it. Why do you keep insisting that doctors or hospitals are unique from any other business?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I keep hearing about personal responsibility, and "the government doesn't have the right to tell ME I have to have health insurance."
Click to expand...

As long as the government is providing the health insurance, I don't have any objection to paying for it-- whether you want to word it that way or not, that's a tax. No different than the registration on my car.

It's government forcing me to do business with a private insurer which offends me.
 
Ethereal said:
You CANNOT pay. What collection agency is going to purchase that debt, or even a fraction of it? It's a massive, unfunded liability.
Click to expand...

That's why every time a debt is sold, your FICO goes down. These collections agencies are good at their job and collect enough debts to not merely stay in business, but thrive.

Ethereal said:
No private business could assume the financial burdens of providing free emergency care to consumers - society would inevitably incur the costs.
Click to expand...

I never said it would be free.

What happens is since the hospital can't sell a debt for what the debt value is, they have to take a loss. That loss would otherwise harm the bottom line, so the loss is passed on to every other costumer.

Ethereal said:
That's fine. If your house and car will cover it then they will cover it. But what hapens if you do not possess the assets necessary to cover the costs?
Click to expand...

If I'm Judgment proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well then they would have to eat the cost.

Ethereal said:
I wasn't asking you.
Click to expand...

:prof This is not a Private Debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom