• 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!

New Health Care Plan

For, against, or neutral?


  • Total voters
    19
I voted neutral simply because I haven't been paying enough attention to the details of the plan. I'm hoping that this poll question will give me a better understanding of the bill.
 
Socialism sucks, is why.

I shouldn't have to pay for the health care of the useless, the useless in this case being those who would pay for their own.
 
Against- Reasoning:

-It will increase our deficit
-It is immoral
-It is not the government's place to issue health insurance
-It will lead to the stifling of free market health care
-I don't want to see tax increases to pay for it
-I do not believe it to be Constitutional
 
I have little faith in the ability of our government to reform healthcare. This will certainly balloon our deficit and I have little faith in the ability of our government to close the budget gap that will eventually strangle this nation
 
If it was an effort aimed at "We'll take you if they won't" meaning the government would provide some sort of healthcare coverage for those unable to get it from a private market, I would likely support it.

It looks more like the government is going to set the rules that will make it impossible for insurance companies to recoup their paid out losses, through increased premiums, thereby bankrupting them. They are also looking at a fine those people that do not purchase a private plan or public plan, $1000, and they are also going to make it illegal to switch to a different private insurer once the public plan is in place. Once you go off your current provider you will have to enroll in the public plan.

Thats what I've read so far and it looks like anything but comprehensive healthcare reform aimed at helping the uninsured, but rather the destruction of an industry, thereby eventually forcing everybody onto the public plan once private insurers are no longer able to afford doing business because the foundation of how they recoup their payouts will be eliminated.
 
Why?

Obama helped create this abomination.
 
Last edited:
Against.

  • It costs too much
  • It will raise healthcare costs to the individual
  • It does nothing to restrain the growth of healthcare costs
  • It is unconstitutional
 
Being totally ignorant of your system, for which i apologise, how does Health care work for the unemployed? and low income category?

Paul
 
Last edited:
Being totally ignorant of your system, for which i apologise, how does Health care work for the unemployed? and low income category?

Paul

There are some government programs, such as medicaid, to provide for this. Medicaid in particular has many, many flaws which can make things difficult.


EDIT:

I should elaborate a bit more for clarity, Medicaid does not cover all the unemployed or low income. Generally, there are other requirements to be in the program that vary from state to state.

The US currently has no nationalized health care blanket for ALL unemployed or low income people- as it should be.
 
Last edited:
Against.

As two persons already so succinctly listed their reasons, which coincide closely with mine, I will combine their lists:

  • It will increase our deficit
  • It is immoral
  • It is not the government's place to issue health insurance
  • It will lead to the stifling of free market health care
  • I don't want to see tax increases to pay for it
  • I do not believe it to be Constitutional
  • It costs too much
  • It will raise healthcare costs to the individual
  • It does nothing to restrain the growth of healthcare costs

Furthermore, I believe there are other measures which can be taken, not necessarily by the government, to reduce the costs of healthcare.
 
Last edited:
Are you for, against, or neutral on the new health care plan?

I am against it. I am not a socialist.If you want health care pay for it yourself, it is not the government's job to provide health care nor is their job to steal money from me in the form of taxes just so someone else can have it.
 
Against.

As two persons already so succinctly listed their reasons, which coincide closely with mine, I will combine their lists:

  • It will increase our deficit FALSE
  • It is immoral OPINION
  • It is not the government's place to issue health insurance OPINION
  • It will lead to the stifling of free market health care TRUE
  • I don't want to see tax increases to pay for it FAIR ENOUGH
  • I do not believe it to be Constitutional TRUE
  • It costs too much
  • It will raise healthcare costs to the individual
  • It does nothing to restrain the growth of healthcare costs

Furthermore, I believe there are other measures which can be taken, not necessarily by the government, to reduce the costs of healthcare.

And when it comes to it not restraining the growth of healthcare costs there is specific examples from reducing overhead costs and rationing that could possibly reduce costs.



I just believe that Obama and the Democrats should at least have a chance to try out their plan of government healthcare so there can be no questions about who is to blame if they fail... or susceed.

I could possibly swallow increased taxes during a recession, but PROGRESSIVE taxes in a recession is a foolish idea. A tax on the wealthest Americas of FIVE percent is proposed. That would kill our economy now.

If anything, a flat tax for universal healthcare like in Europe would be a good idea. And a sales tax to pay for healthcare would be even better.



I am just very annoyed at what Obama said at a ralley in New Jersey with Corzine that I vollunteered for.

Obama was saying that we have two choices, between substidies and huge healthcare costs, or his plan. And that Republicans would continue the status quo. Maybe Republican plans are useless now for healthcare, but Obama was ignoring that those "substidies" for healthcare companies are medicare, medicaid and no taxes on healthcare provided by companies. And of course, Obama supports all of that government intervention.

The Republicans need to push through a true free market plan of taxes on healthcare and reductions to healthcare spending, because the only other option is in the other direction with Obama's plan.

I want the choice to be between private and government plans, instead of substidized private healthcare and government plans.
 
Last edited:
What's the estimated cost? Something like $1.6 trillion? Yeah, thanks but no thanks.
 
I see a couple of problems with the government and health care.

What has the government ever run, that ran alright and on budget.

I'm sure our fearless leaders won't have the same health care plan,as we the people.

I'm sure that their will be a decline in people wanting to be doctors.

The government telling someone it's not in the budget for them to have the care they need,sorry.

I don't want Joe the plumber as my doctor.
 
I don't want Joe the plumber as my doctor.

See, that's the common misconception about this. People think that all the doctors will magically change into someone less qualified. But, its likely that the govt run plan will force very many potential doctors to choose a different profession.
 
Who do you think the doctors will be for the public health care.
Remember you have the upper 50% and the lower50% of doctors graduating from school,which will go to work for the government plan,it won't be the upper 50%.
So you can pick the best doctor of the lower 50% what a deal.
 
There are some government programs, such as medicaid, to provide for this. Medicaid in particular has many, many flaws which can make things difficult.


EDIT:

I should elaborate a bit more for clarity, Medicaid does not cover all the unemployed or low income. Generally, there are other requirements to be in the program that vary from state to state.

The US currently has no nationalized health care blanket for ALL unemployed or low income people- as it should be.

So you are in-fact saying there are portions of society with NO facility for obtaining medical treatment?
Our National Health service has its many faults, but by enlarge you get a fairly good service. Its generally waiting times that seem contentious. In saying that if you have the money there's always the private option with companies such as Bupa.

Edited to add. I take it, as it stands an individual pays X amount for Healthcare insurance. And the government may be imposing a different system?

Paul
 
Last edited:
See, that's the common misconception about this. People think that all the doctors will magically change into someone less qualified. But, its likely that the govt run plan will force very many potential doctors to choose a different profession.
And you don't see a problem with that? :roll:
 
I can't decide between for and neutral. While I think even a bad government system would be better than the status quo, I do believe we have one of the least effective governments among industrialized nations, not limited to the Obama administration. Even if Obama got it right, special interests will mess it up later, as happened with Medicare to some extent. We don't just need to change the healthcare system, we need to change our whole system of government.

Being totally ignorant of your system, for which i apologise, how does Health care work for the unemployed? and low income category?

Paul

In theory the unemployed and low-income persons have medicaid, which is state-run with federally matching funds. In practice, medicaid is often rejected by providers because it reimburses them poorly, and medicaid sometimes only exists in theory because states like mine don't give it money from the general fund and use a lottery to see who will get the low level of benefits offered.

See, that's the common misconception about this. People think that all the doctors will magically change into someone less qualified. But, its likely that the govt run plan will force very many potential doctors to choose a different profession.

Not a different profession, but perhaps a different specialty. We overproduce specialists and in theory centralized funding would allow centralized control to fix that. However, hospitals have been subsidized since the early years of modern medicine, and despite that they have always been allowed to choose how many and what kind of specialists they produce. This is unique in the industrialized world, I believe (not certain). In fact, there are financial incentives to produce specialists as there is federal funding only for hospital-based residency training, as opposed to primary care.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom