• 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!

Healthcare mandatory?

Should healthcare insurance be mandatory for everyone?

  • Yes. Explain please.

    Votes: 11 31.4%

  • No. Explain please.

    Votes: 24 68.6%
  • Total voters
    35
missypea said:
The Emergency Department cannot turn anyone away based on their ability or inability to pay. It's illegal.
:2wave:
Click to expand...
You havent kept up with the diuscussion.
 
Goobieman said:
It doesn't matter how often you repeat your spiel here, your position has been addressed, and you have done nothing to counter the arguments that addrsss it. As such, your position remains untenable.
Click to expand...

No its just reality. You can invent some fantasy world where its "untenable" if you like though.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
No its just reality. You can invent some fantasy world where its "untenable" if you like though.
Click to expand...
Its just reality that your position is untenable.
The fact that you cannot do anythig other than repeat your position, rather than actuall address the argument that negates it, is proof.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Fairly good post. Except for the part that I have quoted. Not everyone can "choose" where they live. Not everyone has the ability or money to move to a different country. Which is basically what you are saying. So you condemn those people to pay for something which they can't afford, and which charges them for simply living. Where's your "conscience" now?

I really wish that people wouldn't base their abilities to do something on everyone else.
Click to expand...

For those that cannot afford a basic catastrophic policy I think it's nearly universally accepted that they should get some financial assistance. I think its more of a question of responsibility than "charging someone for living".
 
Goobieman said:
Its just reality that your position is untenable.
The fact that you cannot do anythig other than repeat your position, rather than actuall address the argument that negates it, is proof.
Click to expand...

Its an observation, not a position. For example, if you were trying to argue that we would be better off if we did not have to conform to the laws of gravity, and someone responded that gravity is a physical law of the universe and there is nothing you can do about it, then they are not just "repeating their position", but rather they are just stating a reality that you are unwilling to accept.

The reality in this case that you are unwilling to accept is that we both as individuals and as a society find it unconscionable for anyone to be denied life saving treatment even if they can't pay for it. That is just the way it is, and you are going to have to accept it.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Its an observation, not a position.
Click to expand...
Back away from it any way you want, the fact remains:

Your (observation) is untenable.

The fact that you cannot do anythig other than repeat your (observation), rather than actually address the argument that negates it, is proof.

That is just the way it is, and you are going to have to accept it.
 
Goobieman said:
Back away from it any way you want, the fact remains:
Your (observation) is untenable.
The fact that you cannot do anythig other than repeat your (observation), rather than actuall address the argument that negates it, is proof.
Click to expand...

I am not backing away from it at all. People will be treated for life threatening conditions at hospitals regardless of their ability to pay. The costs of treating them will then be passed on to others regardless of whether its to other taxpayers, or just through providers overcharging others. After all, why do you think you pay $50.00 for a box of tissues in a hospital?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am not backing away from it all.
People will be treated for life threatening conditions at hospitals regardless of their ability to pay. The costs of treating them will then be passed on to others regardless of whether its to other taxpayers, or just through providers overcharging others.
Click to expand...
All of this has been effectively addressed, with no counterargument from you.

The fact that you cannot do anythig other than repeat your (observation), rather than actually address the argument that negates it, is proof.

That is just the way it is, and you are going to have to accept it.
 
Goobieman said:
All of this has been effectively addressed, with no counterargument from you.

The fact that you cannot do anythig other than repeat your (observation), rather than actually address the argument that negates it, is proof.

That is just the way it is, and you are going to have to accept it.
Click to expand...

Your argument is basically:

1. People can just give to charity to take care of this problem.

Well, people do give to charity, but obviously since people show up all the time to emergency rooms in need of life saving care without the ability to pay, then its obviously insufficient.

2. If a hospital wants to give life saving care to someone that can't pay for it, then its up to them to bear the costs.

The problem there is that you ignore basic economics. They simply pass the costs on to everyone else by charging higher prices for services than they otherwise would.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Your argument is basically:
1. People can just give to charity to take care of this problem.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
My argument is that, if your, individual and collective, conscience so dicstates, you can make this choice for yourself. That there is some degree of collective conscience to this end, in and of itself, means nothing.

Well, people do give to charity, but obviously since people show up all the time to emergency rooms in need of life saving care without the ability to pay, then its obviously insufficient.
Click to expand...
This does nothing to negate what I said. If you, collectively and individualy, feel that enough isn't being done, then you are free to give more.

2. If a hospital wants to give life saving care to someone that can't pay for it, then its up to them to bear the costs.
Click to expand...
This is part of it - but as such, you need to include, and address, the rest.
 
Goobieman said:
Incorrect.
My argument is that, if your, individual and collective, conscience so dicstates, you can make this choice for yourself. That there is some degree of collective conscience to this end, in and of itself, means nothing.


This does nothing to negate what I said. If you, collectively and individualy, feel that enough isn't being done, then you are free to give more.


This is part of it - but as such, you need to include, and address, the rest.
Click to expand...

Yes, in your fantasy world of fairies and unicorns and what ever else is in it, everyone just gives so much to charity that no one shows up at hospitals uninsured without the ability to pay.

Once again, the reality is, people give to charity, yet still people show up at hospitals rack up huge medical bills, and because they are uninsured, the costs get spread to the rest of us. That is what happens.

Now, if you personally would rather spend 50 dollars for a box of tissues while in the hospital to pay for the uninsured, then fine, but personally I would just rather require people to have the nominal amount of personal responsibility to carry at minimum a basic catastrophic policy so that individuals are personally responsible for their medical costs rather than rest of us having to pay for them.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes, in your fantasy world of fairies and unicorns...
Click to expand...
I accept your concession of the point.

The fact that you cannot do anythig other than repeat your (observation), rather than actually address the argument that negates it, is proof of said concession

That is just the way it is, and you are going to have to accept it.
 
Goobieman said:
I accept your concession of the point.

The fact that you cannot do anythig other than repeat your (observation), rather than actually address the argument that negates it, is proof of said concession

That is just the way it is, and you are going to have to accept it.
Click to expand...

The problem is that I am stating reality, and you are trying to counter with: "Well in my little utopia that's not the way it should be".
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The problem is that I am stating reality...
Click to expand...
Your "reality" argument has been countered -- in fact, it was accepted on its own terms, and THEN countered.
You simply dont have a way to negate that counter.

That is just the way it is, and you are going to have to accept it.
 
Goobieman said:
No. Why should they be able to?
Click to expand...

Uhh because they did nothing and allowed someone to die who was fully able to pay for his medical costs. If someone in my family died because the hospital did absolutely nothing to help them, you bet your ass I'd be on the phone with a lawyer to sue them.

Goobieman said:
The bill then goes to the estate. If they estate cannot pay, then the hospital is stuck with it. As noted before, if the hospital cannot determine the patients ability to pay and they treat him anywway, they assume the risk of non-payment.
Click to expand...

A hospital is not a bank. Very often, they don't have access to any/much information about the patient when they have to make that decision. Do you really want hospitals to start refusing emergency care to anyone who doesn't have an insurance card in their pocket at the time of their emergency? For that matter, do you really want doctors to waste time rummaging through the patients' pockets to find an insurance card instead of treating them? :roll:

This system is ridiculous and impractical, and the fact that you are even suggesting it means that you have your head in the clouds and don't want to deal with the real world.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Uhh because they did nothing and allowed someone to die who was fully able to pay for his medical costs. If someone in my family died because the hospital did absolutely nothing to treat them, you bet your ass I'd be on the phone with a lawyer to sue them.
Click to expand...
On what grounds?
Can you show that the hospital could reasonably have known that he could pay, did not make an honest effort to make that determination, or was negligent on making that determination?

A hospital is not a bank. Very often, they don't have access to any/much information about the patient when they have to make that decision. Do you really want hospitals to start refusing emergency care to anyone who doesn't have an insurance card in their pocket at the time of their emergency? :roll:
Click to expand...
In any and every other aspect of life, even those that deal with the necessities of life, if you cannot pay, or cannot show that you are good for the bill, you are denied goods and services. No reason health care should be any different.

This system is ridiculous and impractical, and the fact that you are even suggesting it means that you have your head in the clouds and don't want to deal with the real world.
Click to expand...
If that's the best response you can muster, I'll take that as your concession of the point.
 
Kandahar said:
Does your bizarre stance toward hospital service apply to ambulance service as well?
Click to expand...
Bizzare? Beacuse you dont agree? How self-important of you.

What part of these three tenets do you not agree with, and why?

-People are responsible for themselves;
-People have the right to be compenstated for the goods and services they provide;
-Having a right to something does not equate to having the right to have others provide you the means to exercise that right.
 
Goobieman said:
On what grounds?
Can you show that the hospital could reasonably have known that he could pay, did not make an honest effort to make that determination, or was negligent on making that determination?
Click to expand...

If I have a family member with health insurance, it is an EXPECTATION that the hospital will provide him with emergency service should he or she need it. Ambulance drivers rely on that same expectation; had they known the hospital was going to **** around and waste time trying to find an insurance card, they probably could have taken him to a different hospital.

Furthermore, this degrades ALL emergency care if the first thing everyone does is rummage through the patient's pockets for an insurance card, instead of trying to stop the blood loss.

Honestly, this is common sense. I can't believe I actually have to explain all the ways in which this plan is retarded.

Goobieman said:
In any and every other aspect of life, even those that deal with the necessities of life, if you cannot pay, or cannot show that you are good for the bill, you are denied goods and services. No reason health care should be any different.
Click to expand...

Buying food and an apartment are not immediate, life-threatening needs where seconds count.
 
Goobieman said:
Bizzare? Beacuse you dont agree? How self-important of you.

What part of these three tenets do you not agree with, and why?

-People are responsible for themselves;
-People have the right to be compenstated for the goods and services they provide;
-Having a right to something does not equate to having the right to have others provide you the means to exercise that right.
Click to expand...

Those are the three maxims you live your life by, aren't they? Unfortunately for you, the real world is not that simple. The fact that one can deduce your position on any given issue from a few cliches shows that you are not thinking critically.
 
Kandahar said:
If I have a family member with health insurance, it is an EXPECTATION that the hospital will provide him with emergency service should he or she need it.
Click to expand...
Assuming that the hospital knows that he has insurance, sure -- and if you can show thay they knew, or reasonably should have known that he did have insurance and di dnot render that service, then you have a case.
Else, you do not.

Furthermore, this degrades ALL emergency care if the first thing everyone does is rummage through the patient's pockets for an insurance card, instead of trying to stop the blood loss.
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact this has already been addressed, the part you forget is that the health care provider can always decide to take the risk upon himself.

Honestly, this is common sense.
Click to expand...
The appeal to "Common sense" is the usual code for "I really dont have any real way of backing myself up, so I'll make some false appeal to some false authority".

Buying food and an apartment are not immediate, life-threatening needs where seconds count.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant - a necessity is a necessity, and you certainly -can- be refused a necessity when you cannot show that you are able to pay.
 
Kandahar said:
Those are the three maxims you live your life by, aren't they? Unfortunately for you, the real world is not that simple. The fact that one can deduce your position on any given issue from a few cliches shows that you are not thinking critically.
Click to expand...
Wow.
I knew you'd dodge the question, but I thought you'd be more subtle.

Answer the question:
Which of those three tenets do you not agree with, and why?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Assuming that the hospital knows that he has insurance, sure -- and if you can show thay they knew, or reasonably should have known that he did have insurance and di dnot render that service, then you have a case.
Else, you do not.
Click to expand...

Then what the hell is the purpose of having emergency rooms at all?

Furthermore, why should being able to show that they knew about the insurance matter? Do you support forcing emergency rooms to accept people who DO have insurance...or should they be able to refuse anyone they want?

Goobieman said:
Aside from the fact this has already been addressed, the part you forget is that the health care provider can always decide to take the risk upon himself.
Click to expand...

Impractical. Hospitals are a business. Some are for-profit and some are non-profit, but they're all concerned about their expenses. Most hospitals are not going to voluntarily take such a large cost upon themselves.

Oh, and you DIDN'T address it. How would it not degrade the overall quality of emergency room care if the first thing everyone did was rummage through the patients' pockets for an insurance card?

Goobieman said:
Irrelevant - a necessity is a necessity, and you certainly -can- be refused a necessity when you cannot show that you are able to pay.
Click to expand...

Ya but if you can't afford food and McDonald's won't give it to you for free, you can go beg for change out front, or you can try your luck at the next restaurant down the street. You can't do that with emergency room care.

Furthermore, we have a food stamp program in this country so that that isn't a necessity...but naturally, I assume you're against that too, since I can deduce your position on anything from the cliches you provided. :roll:

Goobieman said:
Answer the question:
Which of these three tenets do you not agree with, and why?
Click to expand...

I don't live my life according to unbending "tenets" (i.e. cliches) that don't take into account the context of the situation. Unlike you, I actually think about issues critically instead of adopting rigid dogmas.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Then what the hell is the purpose of having emergency rooms at all?
Click to expand...
That's an absurdly silly question.

Furthermore, why should being able to show that they knew about the insurance matter?
Click to expand...
Because it shows that they deliberately denied service for someone they knew could pay?

Impractical. Hospitals are a business.
Click to expand...
Its not impractical, its just bad business, if done too often.
But, that doesnt change the fact that the choice exists.

Oh, and you DIDN'T address it. How would it not degrade the overall quality of emergency room care if the first thing everyone did was rummage through the patients' pockets for an insurance card?
Click to expand...
Sure I did -- you jusnt didn't pick up on it.
The entire idea 'degrades' the overall quality of emergency health care because it delays the inception of care to some degree in some number of cases. But, the issue under discussion doesnt revolve around 'overall quality', and so, any argument regarding said degredation is meaningless, especialy given that my posiiton accepts the eventuality that some people will not receive any health care at all.

Ya but...
Click to expand...
Ya but? As in, "Yes, however..."?
So you agree with me, that you CAN be denied necessities if you cannot show that you can pay for therm.
Thanks. Not sure how you have anything left to argue.

Furthermore, we have a food stamp program in this country so that that isn't a necessity...but naturally, I assume you're against that too...
Click to expand...
Naturally, for the reasosn I have given, and that you have failed to counter.

I don't live my life according to unbending "tenets" (i.e. cliches) that don't take into account the context of the situation. Unlike you, I actually think about issues critically instead of adopting rigid dogmas.
Click to expand...
Another dodge, and another lack of surprise on my part.

When you decide to NOT dodge the question, get back to me.
 
Kandahar said:
I think it's generally implied when discussing health care mandates that they would be coupled with some kind of assistance for those who can't afford it. In the current health care debate, I have never heard anyone who believes that health care should be mandatory but no assistance should be given.
Click to expand...

That may be. But you still have the fact that while it might be "fair" to mandate that people have health care insurance it does not mean that it is right to do so. No matter how you couch it, it will still be charging someone for simply living.

Earlier someone mentioned that "it is no different than mandating car insurance". Sorry don't remember who it was and don't really feel like going through the thread to find it again. I would just like to point out that no one HAS to have car insurance. It just means that you can't legally drive if you don't have one.
 
Kal'Stang said:
That may be. But you still have the fact that while it might be "fair" to mandate that people have health care insurance it does not mean that it is right to do so. No matter how you couch it, it will still be charging someone for simply living.

Earlier someone mentioned that "it is no different than mandating car insurance". Sorry don't remember who it was and don't really feel like going through the thread to find it again. I would just like to point out that no one HAS to have car insurance. It just means that you can't legally drive if you don't have one.
Click to expand...

It falls under social contract. In order to drive on U.S. roads you must have car insurance. In order to live on U.S. soil, you should be required to have catastrophic health insurance. We see these kinds of "social contracts" at all levels of government. For example, as a price of living in the community I live in, I cannot have my grass ass high out front. As a price of living in the United States, you can't just dump your motor oil out in the front yard rather than disposing of it properly.

Now, the problem as I see it with requiring individuals to have a catastrophic policy is that it violates the principle of self ownership. I own me, thus why do I have to insure me? The counter to that though, is that if I own me and you own you, why am I having to bear the financial risk of you choosing not to have a catastrophic policy?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom