• 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

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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?
 
I do tend to agree with exceptions.
We should be able to buy catastrophic coverage that does not include rx or physician office visits because this should make it much more affordable for those who can't afford PPO and HMO coverage.
I am also inclined to think true emergency treatment should be available without proof of ability to pay.
 
lizzie said:
We should be able to buy catastrophic coverage that does not include rx or physician office visits because this should make it much more affordable for those who can't afford PPO and HMO coverage.
Click to expand...
I am sure that there is some insurance company somewhere that does this, or something to the same effect.
 
lizzie said:
I do tend to agree with exceptions.
We should be able to buy catastrophic coverage that does not include rx or physician office visits because this should make it much more affordable for those who can't afford PPO and HMO coverage.
I am also inclined to think true emergency treatment should be available without proof of ability to pay.
Click to expand...
if you have an opportunity to purchase insurance, and you don't, why should even true emergency care be available to you?

that said, i like obama's current plan.
 
Goobieman said:
I am sure that there is some insurance company somewhere that does this, or something to the same effect.
Click to expand...

Since HMO legislation was passed by Congress back in the 70's, it's impossible to find in my experience. It may be available somewhere in the US, but not in my state.
 
liblady said:
if you have an opportunity to purchase insurance, and you don't, why should even true emergency care be available to you?
Click to expand...

Because you may be a normally healthy active person who gets creamed by a drunk driver, shot by a murderous criminal, or otherwise suffer an injury due to circumstances beyond your own control.
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
Because you may be a normally healthy active person who gets creamed by a drunk driver, shot by a murderous criminal, or otherwise suffer an injury due to circumstances beyond your own control.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter if it's within your control or not. Getting sick isn't necessarily within your control. You can try to stay healthy but airborne disease doesn't really pay attention to who has insurance and who doesn't. The whole point of owning insurance is "just in case". Nobody is counting on getting into a car accident but you want to be covered in case you are.
 
If I choose not to buy insurance, then I have the choice not to seek treatment when and if I become sick from natural causes. If I get slammed in an accident, shot, or otherwise injured at the hands of another person's negligence or stupidity, I don't have a choice to not seek treatment. In cases of grave emergencies, people are taken to an ER, usually by emergency transport personnel. Even without insurance, my injuries will be treated. I think it's a great idea for people to voluntarily carry health insurance, but it is getting to be very expensive, and some people really can't afford it.
 
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...

I would support mandated health insurance if and only if the mandated insurance was very, very basic. As in, it covers medical treatment in cases of life-threatening emergencies and nothing else. That way, there's no question about withholding treatment for people who can't pay. I think this is a good idea, because if I get T-boned by a drunk driver, I don't want the responding EMTs to waste time looking for my insurance card before they start the CPR.

I'm against mandating more expensive fleshed-out plans however.
 
I see the current system as broken. By having free emergency care (which over half of is never paid for) it forces those that do pay for the service to cover not only their own expenses but also the expenses of the free loaders.

I don't think you can create a system that effectively allows the hospitals to refuse treatment. One scenario for example would be someone who is stabbed and mugged, rushed to a hospital unconscious in need of life saving treatment. Since the hospital can't ID and therefore can't determine whether ability to pay exists or not they could end up refusing treatment to someone with insurance. Short of implanting RFID in everyone and maintaining a national database (hello big brother!) you're going to either have to treat people who don't have insurance, or refuse treatment to people who do have insurance.

Which leaves a mandate as the only equitable viable option.
 
vvx said:
I don't think you can create a system that effectively allows the hospitals to refuse treatment. One scenario for example would be someone who is stabbed and mugged, rushed to a hospital unconscious in need of life saving treatment. Since the hospital can't ID and therefore can't determine whether ability to pay exists or not they could end up refusing treatment to someone with insurance. Short of implanting RFID in everyone and maintaining a national database (hello big brother!) you're going to either have to treat people who don't have insurance, or refuse treatment to people who do have insurance.
Click to expand...

I've got no problem whatsoever with hospitals providing emergency treatment for life-and-death cases regardless of the ability to pay. Most states have a low-cost hospitalization plan anyhow, stabilize the individual, see if they can pay, otherwise get them into the low-cost program. However, that should be restricted to actual life-and-death cases only. Someone walking into the Emergency Room with a cold and no way to pay ought to be turned away.
 
No, I don't think there should be mandated health care coverage, only mandates on car insurance like it is currently, because you know, unlike health care coverage, car insurance coverage is extremely important.

/sarcasm
 
I don't agree with the OP for one simple reason. Pre-existing conditions. I have Diabetes, Bipolar Disorder and I smoke. I applied to 4 insurance companies when I was out of work and was rejected by all of them.

I don't mind having tiers of medical support. Everyone gets emergency support. If you want the Cadillac of coverage, you can get it on the open market, but you cannot get turned away for pre-existing conditions. You also can't be placed in a high-use bracket and have to pay through the nose. You get placed in the same insurance group as everyone else and pay those rates.
 
reefedjib said:
I don't agree with the OP for one simple reason. Pre-existing conditions. I have Diabetes, Bipolar Disorder and I smoke. I applied to 4 insurance companies when I was out of work and was rejected by all of them.

I don't mind having tiers of medical support. Everyone gets emergency support. If you want the Cadillac of coverage, you can get it on the open market, but you cannot get turned away for pre-existing conditions. You also can't be placed in a high-use bracket and have to pay through the nose. You get placed in the same insurance group as everyone else and pay those rates.
Click to expand...

As I understand it though, that's the whole reason for mandated coverage. If everyone has to buy insurance, then the insurance companies can afford to give old and/or sick people the same coverage for the same price as young, healthy people, because the young, healthy people pay them a lot more than they cost (on average). If you allow the young, healthy people to only get emergency coverage, but still require the private insurance companies to cover old and/or sick people at the same rate as everyone else, where will the money come from? It will just end up with everyone's rates going up for the private insurance plans, which will mean fewer people can afford them, which means the rates will have to go even higher to cover the old sick people at the same rate as everyone else. It becomes a nasty cycle.
 
molten_dragon said:
As I understand it though, that's the whole reason for mandated coverage. If everyone has to buy insurance, then the insurance companies can afford to give old and/or sick people the same coverage for the same price as young, healthy people, because the young, healthy people pay them a lot more than they cost (on average). If you allow the young, healthy people to only get emergency coverage, but still require the private insurance companies to cover old and/or sick people at the same rate as everyone else, where will the money come from? It will just end up with everyone's rates going up for the private insurance plans, which will mean fewer people can afford them, which means the rates will have to go even higher to cover the old sick people at the same rate as everyone else. It becomes a nasty cycle.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought of that too. I don't know the answer - I was intending to let market forces do their thing.

If you have two insurance companies, A and B, and A starts getting a lot of sick people sign up that they can't turn away, A's prices will have to go up. B is cheaper, so a lot of healthy people in A switch to B, forcing A's prices to go even higher, soon everyone switches to B and B's prices will have to reflect that. The system evolves to one insurance company insuring everyone.
 
No, because you haven't defined the "what" in your phrase "opt out".

If you mean opt out of some Messiah Care scam, no, I disagree, because the scam shouldn't exist in the first place.

If you mean chose not to buy private insurance (the only kind that's Constitutionally allowed), then sure, if some dumb**** chooses to skip health insurance, it's "his body, his choice", and if he gets some disgusting deadly disease, he can die without recieving a dime from the taxpayers.

That's very fair, and very much the American way.

And for the non-Americans that disagree that it's the American way, they have every freedom to "donate" (a word they don't understand) as much of "their own" money (that means not my money) as they want to help these people who either won't get coverage or are too useless to get a job that pays them enough to buy it for themselves.

THAT'S the American way, people, people paying their own way.
 
lizzie said:
I am also inclined to think true emergency treatment should be available without proof of ability to pay.
Click to expand...

Fine.

Then they're presented with what we Americans call a "bill" and they 're paychecks are taken until it's paid for, with a small allowance for food and shelter.

They can live in the basement of the hospital, perhaps,

Whatever, maybe instead you people can donate enough of your own money to make your dream a reality.

If you weren't selfish, you would have done so already.
 
vvx said:
Since the hospital can't ID and therefore can't determine whether ability to pay exists or not they could end up refusing treatment to someone with insurance. Short of implanting RFID in everyone and maintaining a national database (hello big brother!) you're going to either have to treat people who don't have insurance, or refuse treatment to people who do have insurance.

Which leaves a mandate as the only equitable viable option.
Click to expand...


No, there's another.

Don't let the patient go until the bill is paid or sufficient assurances that the bill will be paid are presented.
 
gabehwkns said:
No, I don't think there should be mandated health care coverage, only mandates on car insurance like it is currently, because you know, unlike health care coverage, car insurance coverage is extremely important.

/sarcasm
Click to expand...

Yes, car insurance coverage is extremely important.

Cars have the potential to seriously injure and harm others, or their property.

The insurance protects them, and the person choosing to exercise the privilege of owning and operating a motor vehicle agrees to abide by the laws that state he must carry a minimum amount of insurance to protect others.

He can choose to not carry insurance by either putting up a cash bond or not buying the car.

People who choose to not carry health insurance and get sick anyway are merely excercising their right to die early. Why should we deny people this basic human freedom?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, there's another.

Don't let the patient go until the bill is paid or sufficient assurances that the bill will be paid are presented.
Click to expand...

So we're going to turn our hospitals into prisons for those who can't pay their medical bills? Who's going to guard the 'prisoners'? Where will they be kept so they're not taking up room that could be going to people who need medical care? Who's going to pay the costs associated with detaining them there?

I'm mostly agree with what you're saying (i.e. that there should be consequences for people who choose not to have health insurance), but the idea of forcing people to stay in the hospital until they can pay their bills doesn't seem well thought out to me.
 
reefedjib said:
I don't agree with the OP for one simple reason. Pre-existing conditions. I have Diabetes, Bipolar Disorder and I smoke. I applied to 4 insurance companies when I was out of work and was rejected by all of them.

I don't mind having tiers of medical support. Everyone gets emergency support. If you want the Cadillac of coverage, you can get it on the open market, but you cannot get turned away for pre-existing conditions. You also can't be placed in a high-use bracket and have to pay through the nose. You get placed in the same insurance group as everyone else and pay those rates.
Click to expand...

There's no reason you shouldn't pay more for health insurance.

You're a greater risk.

Diabetics and bipolars are at greater risk for all sorts of crappy problems, there's no reason other people not sharing those elevated risks should have to pay more to cover those with the risks.

And your smoking is a personal choice, and there's no reason non-smokers should subsidize your habit.

You think maybe women should pay higher premiums to cover prostate problems?

Should men pay higher premiums for hysterectomy coverage?

Should a white person pay to cover sickle cell anemia coverage?

Should the average person pay extra because other people enjoy the hobby of rock climbing?

No, each person has his own unique profile, and that's what should be insured....by that person, if and only if he wants to pay for it.

That's what freedom is.
 
molten_dragon said:
So we're going to turn our hospitals into prisons for those who can't pay their medical bills?
Click to expand...

No, we can ship them to special facilities....I think they're called jails in most places....until their bill is paid or assured to be paid.

You have a problem with businesses receiving payment for services rendered?

Isn't it a misdemeanor to eat a meal at a restaurant and refuse to pay for it, or to get a roof put on your house and stiff the contractor? Medical service is no different, it's provided by people who expect to be paid for their services.

molten_dragon said:
Who's going to guard the 'prisoners'?
Click to expand...

Usually that's the job of prison guards.

Duh.

molten_dragon said:
Who's going to pay the costs associated with detaining them there?
Click to expand...

They will.

Most garages will charge a storage fee for vehicles left longer than a few days, don't they?

Shouldn't non-paying patients be charged for the expenses their choice incurs on others?

molten_dragon said:
I'm mostly agree with what you're saying (i.e. that there should be consequences for people who choose not to have health insurance),
Click to expand...

The only consequence I actually insist on is they be allowed to die before my money is stolen to fix them.

You're perfectly free to contribute your own money to whatever cause gets you off, you know.

molten_dragon said:
but the idea of forcing people to stay in the hospital until they can pay their bills doesn't seem well thought out to me.
Click to expand...

It's perfectly thought out.

People who don't want to spend any more time than they have to eating hospital food will either buy insurance or make sure they have friends who will pay to get them out.
 
I think impoverished children should receive free health care.

I think uninsured adults who suffer from catostrophic injuries should receive treatment but once they're out of the hospital they should either:

a. Repay the debt, whatever the cost or
b. Go to jail if they cannot repay.
 
molten_dragon said:
So we're going to turn our hospitals into prisons for those who can't pay their medical bills?
Click to expand...
No... we have prisons for that.
Pay your bill or go to jail for (some version of) theft.
 
Although, I agree with the principle that you have your own responsibility for your own life, I still disagree to some exctent.

Some people are not able to pay for health care for various reasons, their wage may just be too low, they got fired, or any reason. I think basic health care is a vital right for everyone. That's why we should at least pay for emergency health care.

Another aspect is the economy. In some ways the government has to act as a nanny state, because irresponsible people hurt other people. Some people will hope for the best and suddenly they get cancer and dies because they can't afford treatment. Then a lot of hard work from the parents and the tax payers money for their education goes down in the drain and it will hurt the economy. To keep people healthy is important, to keep the economy running.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom