• 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!

Unfair Practices in Health Care

What is the least fair outcome of this, and why?

  • I do not receive those goods/services because I cannot pay

    Votes: 13 46.4%

  • The doctor does not receive compensation for the goods/services he provided

    Votes: 5 17.9%

  • The doctor’s other patients foot the bill for the goods/services I received

    Votes: 5 17.9%

  • The taxpayers foot the bill for the goods/services I received

    Votes: 5 17.9%
  • Total voters
    28
Singularity said:
I chose it because of your words in the poll - 'I cannot pay', under the assumption that I am sick and the doctor can provide a service to 'get me well'. Now, should I get services for free? No. But if someone cannot afford the service, why should they be denied?
Click to expand...
Denial of goods and services due to inability to pay is the societal norm, one common across virtually all societies.
Why should health care be an exception?

I mean, this is someone's life, after all.
Click to expand...
And so, someone else should be forced shoulder the burden to provide you the means to live?
How does your right to life trump their right to keep the fruits of their labor?

In addition to being unfair, there's something immoral about the whole deal.
Click to expand...
Is it immoral to force others to pay for the goods and services you receive?
How does your 'right' to health care trump their right to keep the fruits of their labor?
 
Last edited:
Did you all know that you can substantially reduce the cost of diagnostic tests by negotiating ahead of time on price? Insurance companies negotiate and so can individuals.

How To Negotiate with a Doctor
 
Goobieman said:
Denial of goods and services due to inability to pay is the societal norm, one common across virtually all societies.
Click to expand...
No, not all
Why should health care be an exception?
Click to expand...

Because the consensus of the majority who live in this country have made that determination
Your point of view may have been the standard 200 years ago. Fortunately, it is not any longer.
 
Cassandra said:
No, not all
Click to expand...
Anticipating this very response, I said VIRTUALLY all.

Because the consensus of the majority who live in this country have made that determination
Click to expand...
Logical fallacy: Argumentum ad populum
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-popularity/

So...
-Why should health care be an exception?

And then:
-Someone else should be forced shoulder the burden to provide you the means to live?
-How does your right to life trump their right to keep the fruits of their labor?
-Is it immoral to force others to pay for the goods and services you receive?
-How does your 'right' to health care trump their right to keep the fruits of their labor?
 
rivrrat said:
That's just what they charge people who don't know any better than to order the test themselves without using a doctor's orders.
Click to expand...

Well the doctor has to get the test from somewhere. Right? Who would he get it from? Labs? And why would he get it from labs for the price of obviously less than $15 when companies sell it to individuals for hundreds of dollars? It seems like a huge gap between $250 and $15. Most people would simply go to a doctor and have him do the test for $15. I mean it would seem to me like if hospitals could perform these tests cheaply they'd have a midway price of say $75 but not a difference of $235.

Complete Thyroid Profile (Blood) | Blood Spot - Profiles | ZRT Laboratory

Price per Unit (piece): $276.00

Overall assessment of thyroid function. Includes: free Thyroxine (fT4), free Triiodothryronine (fT3), Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH), Thyroid Peroxidase Antibody (TPO).
Click to expand...

Thyroid Screenings - Super Chemistry plus Thyroid Blood Testing Profile

This group of tests would typically cost $250 from your local doctor or hospital lab. At $92, that’s a savings of $158!

The Super Chemistry plus Thyroid Blood Testing Panel from HealthCheckUSA is a baseline health assessment that focuses on prevention and identifying any health risk factors related to Heart Disease, risk of heart attack, risk of stroke and thyroid disorders. Due to the popularity of the Blood Testing Panel, HealthCheckUSA is able to provide it at a significant discount versus purchasing these lab tests from your doctor.
Click to expand...

A lab that provides the test :

Lab Test MD, Personal & Confidential Lab Testing Services.

List Price: $225.00
Our Price: $95.00
You Save $130.00!

Product Code: 027011

Tests included in our panel:

Free thyroxine index (FTI)
T3 uptake (THBR)
Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)
Thyroxine (T4)
Tri-iodothyronine (T3)

Thyroid Profile
Click to expand...
 
Cassandra said:
The gov't part of the equation is irrelevant. Whether gov't takes more money from some people than others to redistribute health care dollars OR the hospital does it by charging some people more than others for the same procedure, it is NOT VOLUNTARY.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I was talking about voluntary charity - something entirely different from the two government-backed theft schemes you've mentioned... :2wave:


Cassandra said:
Because the consensus of the majority who live in this country have made that determination
Click to expand...

And if the majority of people in a country decide that rounding up all Jews and putting them in concentration camps is a good idea, does that make it justified? :doh
 
Last edited:
Alex Libman said:
And if the majority of people in a country decide that rounding up all Jews and putting them in concentration camps is a good idea, does that make it justified? :doh
Click to expand...
Oh puleeze. I.M.O. the first person that mentions Nazis in any debate has just lost the debate.

It is such a a cliched act of desperation.
 
MHO is insurance did a lot of damage cost-wise, but it probably also made us have more dollars to invest in all these fancy state of the art hospitals and so forth, so you take the good with the bad.

Again, just an opinion, but government intervention in this rabid dog was inevitable. All people should be able to pay for healthcare out of pocket and that will never be possible, and it never was. I still have tonsils cause my mom couldn't pay for the surgery. Does anybody know how sick I used to get with ear infections and my mom would call the pharmacist and beg for a couple penicillan pills? No kidding. I have crooked teeth because mom couldn't afford braces, but all my friends had insurance, so they had straight teeth. Teeth make a big difference in one's appearance.

I'd like to hear from people in their 50's on this one, and those who had insurance and those who didn't. Big difference when you have a dad with a fairly good job.
 
Cassandra said:
Oh puleeze. I.M.O. the first person that mentions Nazis in any debate has just lost the debate.

It is such a a cliched act of desperation.
Click to expand...

No, what you're doing now is a cliched act of desperation.

I've made a legitimate point that I could have made using any other historical example, from the trial of Socrates to the requiring / banning of headscarves. State violence, whether backed by guns or by the mob (or both), isn't justified, period.
 
Last edited:
Alex Libman said:
Yes, and I was talking about voluntary charity - something entirely different from the two government-backed theft schemes you've mentioned... :2wave:




And if the majority of people in a country decide that rounding up all Jews and putting them in concentration camps is a good idea, does that make it justified? :doh
Click to expand...

Quite different scenarios. One is a tax and spend scheme, and the other is government organized genocide. Not fair to bring in the ol' Nazi comparison for every argument.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Quite different scenarios. One is a tax and spend scheme, and the other is government organized genocide. Not fair to bring in the ol' Nazi comparison for every argument.
Click to expand...

They're both backed by the same "divine right of government" delusion that I'm challenging.
 
Alex Libman said:
They're both backed by the same "divine right of government" delusion that I'm challenging.
Click to expand...
Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy for a reason.
 
Goobieman said:
Anticipating this very response, I said VIRTUALLY all.
Click to expand...
And, as you know, virtually all developed societies have concluded that basic health care is a human right.
-How does your right to life trump their right to keep the fruits of their labor?
-Is it immoral to force others to pay for the goods and services you receive?
-How does your 'right' to health care trump their right to keep the fruits of their labor?
Click to expand...
I think I answered you pages ago- along with others. Your fruits and labors have not been accumulated by you in a void. You have these things because of the many benefits associated with citizenship in this country. To pay for all of these benefits we tax people. We tax people in a progressive manner because it is pragmatic and makes more sense to tax someone more when they benefit more from the opportunities made possible by the resources, infrastructure and military power of this nation. That is fair, I.M.O. Adam Smith advocated progressive taxation. How we allocate the use of these taxes is determined by voters. If voters prefer to pay for H.C. via taxes then so be it.
 
Cassandra said:
And, as you know, virtually all developed societies have concluded that basic health care is a human right.
Click to expand...
First:
How does having a right to something equate to the right to have the means to exercise that right provided to you by others?

Second:
That doesn't address the issue.

People have a right to be compensated for the goods and services they provide, and so that compensation is rightly expected by those that DO provide those goods and services. If you cannot pay for someting, those that provide that something have no obligation to provide it for free, and no one else is any obligation to cover the cost for you.

Why/how is health care different?

I think I answered you pages ago- along with others
Your fruits and labors have not been accumulated by you in a void.
Click to expand...
That I live in a society does not in any way mean those in that society have a legitimate claim to the fruit of my labor within it; whle there may be some organization structure that set the stage for my earning what I earn, the fact is that -I- earned it.
How does your right to life trump that?
How does your 'right' to health care trump that?

How we allocate the use of these taxes is determined by voters. If voters prefer to pay for H.C. via taxes then so be it
Click to expand...
Again - fallacy: Argumentum ad populum
That the majority agrees in no way makes the argument sound.
 
Goobieman said:
Assume that:
I am sick. I go to the doctor. The doctor provides goods/services.
I do not have insurance and I cannot pay for the goods/services provided.

What is the least fair outcome of this, and why?
- I do not receive those goods/services because I cannot pay
- The doctor does not receive compensation for the goods/services he provided
- The doctor’s other patients foot the bill for the goods/services I received
- The taxpayers foot the bill for the goods/services I received
Click to expand...

The least fair outcome is obviously that the taxpayers should foot the bill of an outcome between a physician and his/their patients.

I guess we need a definition of what "fair" is to have a real debate. I define fair as being an adverb in that it means playing fair or in a fair manner.

There is nothing fair about expecting complete strangers to have their income confiscated by the Government to be redistributed through the pandering of votes.
 
Cassandra said:
Where is the option,"none of the above / incomplete data"??

How about this scenario: I am sick I go to the doctor. The doctor provides a service , say a cardiac stent. Patient A has the same procedure. He works for Lockeed and has an excellent insurance plan. The administrators have already reduced the payment for a cardiac stent to $8,000. That is very tight for the hospital's bottom line so anyone who is self-pay the charge is $37,000. for the same procedure. Patient B is self-employed. Through her taxes, she pays for patient A's health insurance, yet because she is not in a large group plan, health insurance costs for patient B are double that of patient A and anything she pays 'out of pocket' will be considerably more expensive....$29,000 more, in this case. (recently heard these numbers, so it is not invented)

That is the starting point to even begin to judge the situation in the U.S.
Click to expand...

This scenario ignores the thread premise; is it more fair for patients to cover their own costs and/or negotiate them with the physician based on ability to pay, or for the central Government to force all taxpayers to pay for services in an effort to pander to ignorant voters who mistakenly believe their will be no cost to them?

EVERYONE can get GOOD health coverage; but they will have to PAY more for it.
 
Goobieman said:
First:
How does having a right to something equate to the right to have the means to exercise that right provided to you by others?

Second:
That doesn't address the issue.

People have a right to be compensated for the goods and services they provide, and so that compensation is rightly expected by those that DO provide those goods and services. If you cannot pay for someting, those that provide that something have no obligation to provide it for free, and no one else is any obligation to cover the cost for you.

Why/how is health care different?
Click to expand...
It is not. We pay for other services this way. Education for example


That I live in a society does not in any way mean those in that society have a legitimate claim to the fruit of my labor within it; whle there may be some organization structure that set the stage for my earning what I earn, the fact is that -I- earned it.
How does your right to life trump that?
How does your 'right' to health care trump that?
Click to expand...
Naturally you can complain until you are blue in the face. You pay dues to belong to this particular country club called the U.S. You don't get these privileges for nothing. Democracy confers legitimacy as to how those dues are allocated.
 
This poll is a mini indicator of why we are having the idiotic debates over Government healthcare we currently have; the notion that it is least fair to not get anything at all.

But alas, this scenario currently does not exist; everyone in this country actually can get some form of care, so not getting any is a false choice.

I would like to see one example where someone shows up at a hospital needing critical care and being turned away. I would like to see one example where someone who showed up at a clinic that caters to the poor turned away for a mammogram or blood test.

There is nothing wrong with expecting someone to pay, or someone to donate their time, to care for the needy. There is something patently wrong when Liberals attempt to force all tax payers to shoulder the burden in an effort to pander for votes.
 
Cassandra said:
It is not. We pay for other services this way. Education for example
Click to expand...
And so I ask again:
How does having a right to something equate to the right to have the means to exercise that right provided to you by others?


Naturally you can complain until you are blue in the face. You pay dues to belong to this particular country club called the U.S. You don't get these privileges for nothing. Democracy confers legitimacy as to how those dues are allocated.
Click to expand...
Unsurprisingly, you're avoiding my questions and standing on your Argumentum ad populum argument, which is inherently unsound.

So, if that's the best you have, your argument, being inherently unsound, necessarily fails.
 
MHO is insurance did a lot of damage cost-wise, but it probably also made us have more dollars to invest in all these fancy state of the art hospitals and so forth, so you take the good with the bad.

Again, just an opinion, but government intervention in this rabid dog was inevitable. All people should be able to pay for healthcare out of pocket and that will never be possible, and it never was. I still have tonsils cause my mom couldn't pay for the surgery. Does anybody know how sick I used to get with ear infections and my mom would call the pharmacist and beg for a couple penicillan pills? No kidding. I have crooked teeth because mom couldn't afford braces, but all my friends had insurance, so they had straight teeth. Teeth make a big difference in one's appearance.

I'd like to hear from people in their 50's on this one, and those who had insurance and those who didn't. Big difference when you have a dad with a fairly good job.
 
Marilyn Monroe said:
MHO is insurance did a lot of damage cost-wise, but it probably also made us have more dollars to invest in all these fancy state of the art hospitals and so forth, so you take the good with the bad.

Again, just an opinion, but government intervention in this rabid dog was inevitable. All people should be able to pay for healthcare out of pocket and that will never be possible, and it never was. I still have tonsils cause my mom couldn't pay for the surgery. Does anybody know how sick I used to get with ear infections and my mom would call the pharmacist and beg for a couple penicillan pills? No kidding. I have crooked teeth because mom couldn't afford braces, but all my friends had insurance, so they had straight teeth. Teeth make a big difference in one's appearance.

I'd like to hear from people in their 50's on this one, and those who had insurance and those who didn't. Big difference when you have a dad with a fairly good job.
Click to expand...

I am in my 50s, never had my tonsils out nor braces and I was entitled to Government healthcare being a military brat overseas.

::shrugs::

This notion that Americans cannot afford the expense of insurance is false; they CHOOSE not to pay for it and now many think that they can get the Government to confiscate the wealth of others to pay for them so that they can spend it on new cars, the latest big screen TV and $100 tennis shoes.

This debate should be about choice, competition and the FACT that Government can't manage their own budget let alone something as complex as the nation’s healthcare system.

It is almost hysterical when Obama falsely claims that much of the cost of his program will be over 500 billion in savings from Medicare by making it more efficient; the whole program has been budgeted at $420 billion for 2009. In other words, Government will be so effective Medicare will not only cost NOTHING, but actually make a profit. :rofl

My question to liars like Obama is this; if you can seriously pull out $500 billion in costs for Medicare, why don’t we do that instead and balance the Federal budget?
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
This notion that Americans cannot afford the expense of insurance is false; they CHOOSE not to pay for it and now many think that they can get the Government to confiscate the wealth of others to pay for them so that they can spend it on new cars, the latest big screen TV and $100 tennis shoes.
Click to expand...

This is actually quite true. With the premise in mind, exactly how rational are consumers? If the answer is not very rational, a market model for health care will face some serious limitations, as the market pricing mechanism is based on consumer rationality.

This debate should be about choice, competition and the FACT that Government can't manage their own budget let alone something as complex as the nation’s healthcare system.
Click to expand...

You should rephrase that. Government won't manage their own budget due to the pressure to get re-elected. You can say that spending needs to be cut, which could be valid on a plethora of issues, but the other side of the coin is responsibility. If government is going to spend, they will have to pull in revenue somehow.

It is almost hysterical when Obama falsely claims that much of the cost of his program will be over 500 billion in savings from Medicare by making it more efficient; the whole program has been budgeted at $420 billion for 2009. In other words, Government will be so effective Medicare will not only cost NOTHING, but actually make a profit. :rofl
Click to expand...

It is based of the ten year aggregate mean. I highly doubt he stated it would be a yearly savings, but then again i could be mistaken.

My question to liars like Obama is this; if you can seriously pull out $500 billion in costs for Medicare, why don’t we do that instead and balance the Federal budget?
Click to expand...

Would you dare him to raise taxes:shock:
 
Alex Libman said:
And if the majority of people in a country decide that rounding up all Jews and putting them in concentration camps is a good idea, does that make it justified? :doh
Click to expand...

Yo Godwin I know you makin your law, and I'ma let you finish, but Murphy had one of the best laws of all time.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
This is actually quite true. With the premise in mind, exactly how rational are consumers? If the answer is not very rational, a market model for health care will face some serious limitations, as the market pricing mechanism is based on consumer rationality.

You should rephrase that. Government won't manage their own budget due to the pressure to get re-elected. You can say that spending needs to be cut, which could be valid on a plethora of issues, but the other side of the coin is responsibility. If government is going to spend, they will have to pull in revenue somehow.

It is based of the ten year aggregate mean. I highly doubt he stated it would be a yearly savings, but then again i could be mistaken.

Would you dare him to raise taxes:shock:
Click to expand...

You're starting to make sense; who has taken over Goldenboy’s forum name?

I will address two things here:

(1) It is based of the ten year aggregate mean.

I believe you may be correct, my argument stands however that the figures are nothing more than fabricated numbers in an effort to dis-inform gullible taxpayers into supporting a program few support.

(2) Would you dare him to raise taxes

On this comment I want to be VERY clear so that there is NO doubt; my argument has always been that if the Democrats are going to spend us into a $1.6 trillion deficit on pork laden projects that pander to voters and do nothing to expand the economy and lower unemployment, then they MUST raise the necessary taxes to pay for them.

Democrats LIED to the American people claiming they would pay as they go and be fiscally responsible to get elected. It is time for them to step up to the plate and let their actions match their rhetoric regardless of the political and economic consequences of their rabid stupidity.

Secondly, Democrats railed about Bush's tax cuts for 8 years claiming that the only PROPER action was to RAISE taxes. Now they irresponsibly spend future generations of Americans into debt without a single honest dialogue as to how they will pay for their largess.

Yes, I double dawg DARE them to raise the taxes necessary to pay for their irresponsible spending and stand behind their partisan rhetoric and promises they made to the Ameircan people when they denigrated the Bush Adminstration for behavior that pales in comparison.
 
Goobieman said:
Denial of goods and services due to inability to pay is the societal norm, one common across virtually all societies.
Why should health care be an exception?
Click to expand...

For one, the denial of goods and services may not be directly detrimental to your health if those goods and services are not emergency services. The denial of health care is detrimental, though.


Goobieman said:
And so, someone else should be forced shoulder the burden to provide you the means to live?
How does your right to life trump their right to keep the fruits of their labor?
Click to expand...

Not only should we, but i'd argue that we have a moral obligation to do just that. Let's say that you were suffering from a disease that carried a mortality rate of 99% if left untreated, yet survivability increased to 100% if you had access to medical treatment. Should I let you die if you cannot afford to be medically treated simply because I want more money in my back pocket? I would say 'no' - hence my answer to your poll question.


Goobieman said:
Is it immoral to force others to pay for the goods and services you receive?
How does your 'right' to health care trump their right to keep the fruits of their labor?
Click to expand...

Goods and services, yes. But what about emergency services? Should, say, the fire department refuse to save your child trapped in a burning building if they discovered your domicile is uninsured? You see what i'm driving at. Refusing health care to those who cannot pay is akin to denying every individual who cannot afford it the right to life should they become sick, and I am not comfortable with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom