• 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!

Do you agree w/ my position on mandated health care?

Do you agree with me

  • Total voters
    32
Goobieman said:
This is only possible because third patries, like insurance companies, are able to pay those higher prices ans still make money. Eliminate third-party payers, and prices must go down.
Click to expand...

That's my point. Insurance companies exist now to increase prices so consumer are dependent on them, thus increasing their profits. Eliminate the insurance companies and prices drop where consumers can afford at least minor health care out of pocket.

Insurance companies would still be needed for significant health care needs though (weeks or months in a hospital with multiple treatments).
 
Gibberish said:
That's my point. Insurance companies exist now to increase prices so consumer are dependent on them, thus increasing their profits. Eliminate the insurance companies and prices drop where consumers can afford at least minor health care out of pocket.
Click to expand...
This was my point, exactly.
 
Gibberish said:
That's my point. Insurance companies exist now to increase prices so consumer are dependent on them, thus increasing their profits.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Insurance companies exist because they can more efficiently hedge risk than your average family (via savings and healthy living). Every home dwelling being required to have smoke alarms does not prevent fires from happening. This is a clear indication that private insurance firms provide a service that is legitimately demanded by consumers.

Eliminate the insurance companies and prices drop where consumers can afford at least minor health care out of pocket.
Click to expand...

Insurance was not created to be used as a means of continuous consumption. Minor care should not require insurance supplementation as a means of payment (a major flaw in our system). However; children being born with horrible pre-existing conditions (PEC's) is expensive. Given the actual demand for health care in a time of need, you can easily see why/how hospitals/doctors are able to pull in additional revenue from large payers such as the US government and major HMO's. But why? It is not as if the profit margins in hospitals is off the charts. There are severe cost constraints in such a field.

Insurance companies would still be needed for significant health care needs though (weeks or months in a hospital with multiple treatments).
Click to expand...

Which is what they are intended to be used for. Insurance was created to hedge against risk.
 
Goobieman said:
As noted before, this is where your argument fails.
We have a well-functioning society w/o your plan for heath care in place.
Thus, there's no necessity.
Click to expand...

Which parallel universe would that be? Not the one the rest of us inhabit. ;)
 
Goldenboy219 said:
For the sake of avoiding another monopsony and/or further bailouts; private insurers cannot be forced to insure high risk applicants unless federally subsidized.
Click to expand...

High risk applicants will be included in a group rate and that rate may need to go up to cover the increased risk.
 
Goobieman said:
As noted before, this is where your argument fails.
We have a well-functioning society w/o your plan for heath care in place.
Thus, there's no necessity.
Click to expand...

No we don't have a well-functioning society. There is a health necessity that is currently not being met. There is also a financial necessity that is not being met. People aren't covered and people can't pay for it.

I agree that competition is the way to bring prices down.
 
reefedjib said:
No we don't have a well-functioning society. There is a health necessity that is currently not being met. There is also a financial necessity that is not being met. People aren't covered and people can't pay for it.
Click to expand...
None of this supports the idea that we do not have a well-functioning society. You're trying to support your argument with circular reasoning.
 
reefedjib said:
High risk applicants will be included in a group rate and that rate may need to go up to cover the increased risk.
Click to expand...

High risk applicants will have to pay more? Sounds very similar to the system currently in place (where the ER is used as a general physician). However, i cannot see where this will decrease the costs per say.

Could you elaborate a bit?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
High risk applicants will have to pay more? Sounds very similar to the system currently in place (where the ER is used as a general physician). However, i cannot see where this will decrease the costs per say.

Could you elaborate a bit?
Click to expand...

I didn't say a thing about reducing costs.
 
Goobieman said:
None of this supports the idea that we do not have a well-functioning society. You're trying to support your argument with circular reasoning.
Click to expand...

Not at all. We have a healthcare crisis in this country with increasing costs and decreasing ability to pay those increased costs. This is especially true given the unemployment rate. All of this is resulting in more people getting sick and not getting proper treatment, which will cause more costs to be assessed in the future. We do not have a well-functioning society in this regard. There is a healthcare necessity. There is no circular reasoning being used.
 
reefedjib said:
I didn't say a thing about reducing costs.
Click to expand...

Then how is such a policy realistic/helpful? The major issue with the US health care system is the double digit cost increases year over year combined with general mediocre results. Better coverage and ever increasing costs only deals with the symptom, not the disease. Otherwise, such a policy is unsustainable in the medium and long run.
 
reefedjib said:
Not at all. We have a healthcare crisis in this country with increasing costs and decreasing ability to pay those increased costs. This is especially true given the unemployment rate. All of this is resulting in more people getting sick and not getting proper treatment, which will cause more costs to be assessed in the future. We do not have a well-functioning society in this regard. There is a healthcare necessity. There is no circular reasoning being used.
Click to expand...
:doh
Sigh.
Here's the problem with your argument:
We do not have a well-functioning society in this regard
Click to expand...
That society is not, according to you, "well-functioning in this regard" does not mean that it is not, as a whole well-functioning.

Thus, you have failed to show necessity, especially one that rises to the level of education.
 
Personally I agree.

Let me elaborate. No where in the constitution does it give the right to force a product upon any American citizen.

The 10th Ammendment says:
Code: 
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Otherwise.. If the constitution doesnt say congress can do it, then it's not up to congress to decide they can. It's up to the states, and more importantly, the people.





Also, the 24th Amendment:
Code: 
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

In layman's terms: You cannot make someone pay a tax to vote. -- Well, the health care bill makes you ineligible to vote if you do not pay for coverage, or the tax for not using the governments version (Ineligible because you are a felon).



If I am wrong, please do tell me. I'll gladly admit to anything I've said that may have been misguided.



For the first time in the 233 years of American history, we the people would be REQUIRED to purchase something and Personally i find it disgusting. :thumbdown
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Then how is such a policy realistic/helpful? The major issue with the US health care system is the double digit cost increases year over year combined with general mediocre results. Better coverage and ever increasing costs only deals with the symptom, not the disease. Otherwise, such a policy is unsustainable in the medium and long run.
Click to expand...

Ok, I modified my list a little. I do agree that competition is important. That is the problem with single payer. Mind you my conclusions about what to do are in flux. I am not sure how to ensure complete coverage of everyone, since it is a necessity, and also have competition. My proposed solution is in bold:

  1. Necessity: Healthcare is a necessity for a well functioning society, designed along the lines of compulsory education.
  2. States Rights: Each state should implement their own healthcare coverage. Some will choose single payer. Others will have a regulated market.
  3. Coverage: Everyone is covered - no exclusion for pre-existing conditions.
  4. Affordability: No one should have to pay too much - put the high-cost patients in a large enough actuarial group to spread the cost.
  5. Choice: You can choose the doctors, specialists and drug companies you do business with.
  6. Competition: Protect the free enterprise nature of the industry - not so much the insurance companies, but the drug companies, hospitals, research labs, equipment/device companies.
  7. Funding: There is some federal tax dollars given to those states who implement compulsory healthcare. State taxes pay for the rest. One idea is to allot an amount to the insurance card carrier. That person will spend that money. If you need to exceed the amount alloted, your insurance rates will go up to a higher bracket which is also subsidized by state taxes.
  8. Medicaid and Medicare: These remain federal programs for those states that do not adopt compulsory healthcare. They become part of the state program for those states that do adopt compulsory healthcare. The federal funds will go to the state.
 
Goobieman said:
:doh
Sigh.
Here's the problem with your argument:

That society is not, according to you, "well-functioning in this regard" does not mean that it is not, as a whole well-functioning.

Thus, you have failed to show necessity, especially one that rises to the level of education.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

You never explained the necessity of education if creating a well-functioning society.
 
reefedjib said:
I disagree.
Click to expand...
That just means you wont admit you're wrong.

You said:
We do not have a well-functioning society in this regard
Click to expand...

You're trying to show that some degree of inefficacy in one part of society indicates that society in general is not well-functioning, and then that correcting said inefficacy is necessary to have a well-functiong society in general.

Your logic fails; it is no different than saying because your car radio doesn't work, your car doesnt run well, and then, in order for your car to run well, you must fix the radio. You might not like the fact your radio doesnt work, and you'd certainly LIKE to fix it, but it doesnt mean the car isnt running well.

Necessity is a strong word. Your use of it does not meet its deninition.

You never explained the necessity of education in creating a well-functioning society.
Click to expand...
Do I really need to? Where do you suppose our society would be if there were not basic education? I mean, other than non-existant.
And dont forget -- the term I used was "our society".
 
reefedjib said:
  1. Medicaid and Medicare: These remain federal programs for those states that do not adopt compulsory healthcare. They become part of the state program for those states that do adopt compulsory healthcare. The federal funds will go to the state.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that Medicaid and Medicare are compleetly bankrupt.



There must be a reason, Although, I just cant seem to put my finger on it...


-----------------------------------------------------

"Over seven years, the federal program for the elderly and disabled paid at least about $77 million — and possibly as much as $92 million — to purported medical equipment suppliers who used Medicare ID numbers of deceased physicians, says a report out Wednesday by congressional investigators" (The Swine Line).
Click to expand...

"The government will spend about $430 billion this year on Medicare, which provides health coverage to 44 million elderly and disabled people. The sheer size of the program, with more than 1.2 billion claims filed each year, not only makes it ripe for fraud but for mistakes. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that payment errors total about $10.8 billion a year" (Associated Press).
Click to expand...


"The government paid more than $47 billion in questionable Medicare claims including medical treatment showing little relation to a patient's condition, wasting taxpayer dollars at a rate nearly three times the previous year" (Associated Press).
Click to expand...


"Medicare and Medicaid, which cover elderly and low-income patients respectively, eat up a growing portion of the federal budget. Investigations by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) point to as much as $60 billion a year in fraud, waste and overpayments between the two programs. And Coburn is likely underestimating the problem" (OBM Watch).
Click to expand...


The Tab*
Wasteful Health Spending:
$60 billion (fraud, waste, overpayments) + $100 billion (modest 15 percent cost reduction) + $15 billion (closing the 12 percent loophole) + $10 billion (unnecessary Medicare administrative and drug costs)
Total $185 billion
Running Tab: $352.5 billion +$185 billion = $537.5 billion
(Government Accountability Office).
Click to expand...




Sources:

"Medicare - I see (and pay) Dead People". Dave Williams. The Swine Line. July 9, 2008.
<http://swineline.org/2008/07/09/medicare-i-see-and-pay-dead-people/>


"Medicare Auditing Zealotry Wanted". Alexa Moutevelis. Associated Press. March 3, 2008.
<http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=cagwmedia.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Fhealth%2Fstory%2F_a%2Faudits-sting-hospitals-physicians%2F20080301073809990001>


"Almost $50B in 'questionable' Medicare". Associated Press. November 14, 2009.
<http://www.nypost.com/p/news/politics/almost_in_questionable_medicare_lA6Gt32D5rrvbAV0Z3ljpO>


Other Sources: Source list: OMB Watch, Tax Payers for Common Sense, Citizens Against Government Waste, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Government Accountability Office
 
Eric said:
It should be noted that Medicaid and Medicare are compleetly bankrupt.



There must be a reason, Although, I just cant seem to put my finger on it..
Click to expand...

Eric,

There is a solution although it will not be supported by the so called "fiscal conservatives".

Raise taxes just like Reagan did!
 
Goobieman said:
That just means you wont admit you're wrong.
Click to expand...

HAH! Bollocks! Not at all. Don't go getting belligerent on me, Goobieman , we've had a useful exchange so far.

Goobieman said:
reefedjib said:
We do not have a well-functioning society in this regard
Click to expand...
You're trying to show that some degree of inefficacy in one part of society indicates that society in general is not well-functioning, and then that correcting said inefficacy is necessary to have a well-functiong society in general.

Your logic fails; it is no different than saying because your car radio doesn't work, your car doesnt run well, and then, in order for your car to run well, you must fix the radio. You might not like the fact your radio doesnt work, and you'd certainly LIKE to fix it, but it doesnt mean the car isnt running well.

Necessity is a strong word. Your use of it does not meet its deninition.
Click to expand...

No, I am talking about society as a whole. The fabric of society is based on the well-being of its citizenry. If they are uneducated, that prevents them from being knowledgeable, if they are sick, that prevents them from working and contributing to society.

A better analogy would be if the transmission was slipping. You can still go forward, but not as efficiently as you could if the transmission was fixed.


Goobieman said:
Do I really need to? Where do you suppose our society would be if there were not basic education? I mean, other than non-existant.
And dont forget -- the term I used was "our society".
Click to expand...

I think you should. I am saying that healthcare resembles education and you are objecting to that. What is it about education that you think makes it a necessity?
 
Goobieman said:
I disagree with any mandated health care position.

If one does not want to have health care, they should be allowed to opt out. However, if they then get ill, under no circumstances should the government assist or subsidize their health expenses. They made a choice. They need to then take responsibility for that choice and manage their health care out of their own expenses.

Also, doctors and hospitals should not be required to accept any "opt out" patients without ability to pay verification. IMO, this kind of thing will save the US more tax dollars than anything I've seen presented in health care reform.

Do you agree with me?
Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Your position is sound except for one point... and that is doctors refusing treatment in critical ER situations. They must accept patients who are dying of critical injuries. It would be against medical ethics not to. Even a broken bone can be life threatening if it nicks a nearby artery as it shatters, or an allergy that is causing physical distress.

Given that, you would be hard pressed to define what could be considered "critical" and what isn't just based on initial appearance. Tests and reporting are required, as well as observation. This all requires money.

People should not be able to opt out under those grounds, and frankly to assume they could is just arrogant. I think the health care legislation has its flaws, but if it's going to go into practice, then it should encompass everyone. People wanting to opt out mostly don't have medical experience and are doing it from a libertarian perspective; meanwhile they have no way of knowing what medical issues face them down the road.

If you get critically injured, you will WANT care, regardless of what your position was beforehand. People without insurance now still get treated in such circumstances, but they can't pay their bills. This creates a burden on the entire system. That burden can only be plugged with mandated health care.
 
Eric said:
It should be noted that Medicaid and Medicare are compleetly bankrupt.



There must be a reason, Although, I just cant seem to put my finger on it...
Click to expand...

That's why we need to get those programs out of the hands of the federal government and into the hands of the states.

I see it as a three step process, and I didn't mention the third step:
1) state does not support compulsory healthcare - medicare and medicaid remain federal programs for recipients in that state.
2) state initially has compulsory healthcare - federal health funds for medicare and medicaid go to the state.
3) after a period of time (5 years?) for a compulsory healthcare state - taxes drop at the federal level and increase at the state level to pay for the replacement program to medicare and medicaid. Federal money stops.
 
reefedjib said:
No, I am talking about society as a whole. The fabric of society is based on the well-being of its citizenry. If they are uneducated, that prevents them from being knowledgeable, if they are sick, that prevents them from working and contributing to society.
Click to expand...
Well then, if that's the case, its imposisble to argue that health care is a necessity, as people, on a societal level, are currently more than capable of 'contributing' -- and always have been, even when the idea of 'health care' was making sure you kept warm in the winter.

You might argue that things might be 'better' if something were in place, but, as I suggested before, something that would make things better is a luxury, not a 'necessity'.
 
Orius said:
Your position is sound except for one point... and that is doctors refusing treatment in critical ER situations. They must accept patients who are dying of critical injuries. It would be against medical ethics not to. Even a broken bone can be life threatening if it nicks a nearby artery as it shatters, or an allergy that is causing physical distress.
Click to expand...
Mandated by the state and mandated by ethics are different things.
A health care provider must have the choice, and must make that choice knowing that he may not be compensated for his services.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom