• 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
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't have a dream, but I do pay for my own health insurance. Fortunately, it is provided through my employer and is not terribly expensive. That being said, the reality is that if someone is taken to a hospital for a really life-threatening problem, he/she will be treated regardless of ability to pay or insurance status. Althought I don't agree entirely with Denninger on the health care issue, he has some thoughts worth considering on the health care problem.

excerpt:

If you show up without insurance or ability to pay with a life-threatening condition, you will be treated, but the hospital cannot cost-shift the bill - it instead bills The Federal Government. We have created an expectation that if you show up needing emergency treatment you will get it, irrespective of ability to pay. This creates a monstrous problem for hospitals and results in the $30 aspirin, among other outrageous distortions. The solution is to have The Federal Government receive all uninsured and unpaid bills, with the debt being immediately paid by the government. Said debt then becomes a collection item against the citizen - a debt to the Treasury, administered by the Internal Revenue Service. If you cannot pay cash, that's fine - the IRS will be happy to take payments (at interest.) If you're an illegal alien the Federal Government will be mandated (by statute) to collect from the other nation, and if they refuse to pay, to deduct any such amount from foreign aid of any type and source on a dollar-for-dollar basis.
Click to expand...

If you're interested in reading his other ideas:

Health Care: WAKE UP WASHINGTON! - The Market Ticker
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

I could not afford the health care and medication I receive. I visit the various doctors often. I take about $1200/month in medication. Luckily I have group insurance through my job.

I know diabetics who have no health insurance and they cannot afford their meds. The are suffering and getting worse.

The whole point of insurance is to spread the risk. All the members of my group insurance pay a little bit for my health care. This is because I require care in excess of what I pay. They pay in excess of what they use. My costs are spread through the group. Insurance mitigates risk and that is what is happening here.

The same argument could be provided on a broader scale. Let's just say that we have single-payer. (I don't like the idea that it would be government run as they are likely to mismanage it). All people would pay for all medical costs. It would be like one giant group insurance. Many people would pay more than they use. There are those like myself that would use more than they pay.

This is why I like a tiered approach, with some level of care given for everyone, and premium services offered to those with private insurance.

There are other things you pay for that you may not use in this country:
  • Welfare
  • Medicaid
  • Medicare
  • Social Security
  • FCC
  • FAA
  • HHS
  • Transportation
  • Energy
  • NSF

Any others? Not all entitlements, we can see.

There are those things that you pay for that you use or get service from:
  • Military
  • Intelligence
  • Justice

****, maybe I just talked myself into being in favor of single-payer.
 
reefedjib said:
The whole point of insurance is to spread the risk. All the members of my group insurance pay a little bit for my health care. This is because I require care in excess of what I pay. They pay in excess of what they use. My costs are spread through the group. Insurance mitigates risk and that is what is happening here.
Click to expand...
As noted before, spreading the risk thru purchasing isnurance is a voluntary association. Socializing the risk thru government is not.

The same argument could be provided on a broader scale. Let's just say that we have single-payer. (I don't like the idea that it would be government run as they are likely to mismanage it). All people would pay for all medical costs. It would be like one giant group insurance. Many people would pay more than they use. There are those like myself that would use more than they pay.
Click to expand...
Yes... and I would be forced to pay for that excess cost, as compared to buying into insurance, in which case I choose to pay fot that excess.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.



Usually that's the job of prison guards.

Duh.



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?



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.



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.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with requiring them to pay their debts, but you didn't originally say 'send them to jail if they don't pay'. You said 'don't let them leave', look, I'll quote you:

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...

I took 'don't let the patient go' literally. Not my fault if you were unclear.
 
reefedjib said:
I could not afford the health care and medication I receive.
Click to expand...

Life's a bitch, ain't it?

Can you explain why I should pay instead of you?

I visit the various doctors often. I take about $1200/month in medication. Luckily I have group insurance through my job.

reefedjib said:
I know diabetics who have no health insurance and they cannot afford their meds. The are suffering and getting worse.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when people get fatal illnesses.

reefedjib said:
The whole point of insurance is to spread the risk.
Click to expand...

Among users choosing to be in the risk pool.

Since I don't have ovaries, I should be allowed to opt out of coverage for ovarian cancer, and should be paying whatever the actuarial tables say should be the rate for testicular cancer coverage.

Since I do have diabetes, I should be paying for whatever risks that disease entails, and people who don't have it, and believe themselves to be at low risk, should not have to buy that coverage if they don't want it.

This is called the free market. It works wonderfully well, and when the government gets out of the way the free market typically provides those services the people require. But, because the government is in the way, on many levels, the free market can't work in health care right now.

The cause of the problem is government, and more government isn't the cure, just like more sugar won't cure diabetes.

reefedjib said:
All the members of my group insurance pay a little bit for my health care. This is because I require care in excess of what I pay. They pay in excess of what they use. My costs are spread through the group. Insurance mitigates risk and that is what is happening here.
Click to expand...

If they're paying more for risks they don't have, they're either fools or being denied freedom of choice.

Which is it?

reefedjib said:
The same argument could be provided on a broader scale. Let's just say that we have single-payer. (I don't like the idea that it would be government run as they are likely to mismanage it).
Click to expand...

ALL government health plans migrate into single payer for the masses with special care for the elites.

Messiah Care won't be any exception to that.

reefedjib said:
All people would pay for all medical costs.
Click to expand...

Why should I pay for risks I don't have?

Why should I pay so people who won't pay now can get coverage?

reefedjib said:
There are other things you pay for that you may not use in this country:
  • Welfare
  • Medicaid
  • Medicare
  • Social Security
  • FCC
  • FAA
  • HHS
  • Transportation
  • Energy
  • NSF

Hmmm.....Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Socialist Security, FCC, HHS, Energy, NSF have no Constitutional support whatsoever. The FAA could remotely be called "sky cops" and hence fit a legitimate function of government, and Transportation could come under "post roads" if you stretch it, but for the most part, the government has weaseled its way into tremendous areas of the American economy where it has no legitimate authority.

Health care is another area where the politicians are trying to seize power without Constitutional authority.

reefedjib said:
There are those things that you pay for that you use or get service from:
  • Military
  • Intelligence
  • Justice

Ah, you mean the military that performs a vital and legitimate function of government, the spying agencies that perform a military necessary function, and the justice department that also perform a vital and legitimate function of government?

Amazing, I'm paying for what governments are supposed to be doing.

Why do you think I'd take issue with that?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm fine with requiring them to pay their debts, but you didn't originally say 'send them to jail if they don't pay'. You said 'don't let them leave', look, I'll quote you:
Click to expand...

Yeah? So? What do you think I meant, if it wasn't incarcerate their asses until the bill is paid or covered?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yeah? So? What do you think I meant, if it wasn't incarcerate their asses until the bill is paid or covered?
Click to expand...

I already answered that question.

molten_dragon said:
I took 'don't let the patient go' literally. Not my fault if you were unclear.
Click to expand...

See, I was assuming the patient was in a hospital (that's where patients usually are), and "go" meant leave. I read the phrase "don't let the patient go" as meaning "don't let the patient leave the hospital" (which is where a medical patient would logically be).
 
Goobieman said:
As noted before, spreading the risk thru purchasing isnurance is a voluntary association. Socializing the risk thru government is not.


Yes... and I would be forced to pay for that excess cost, as compared to buying into insurance, in which case I choose to pay fot that excess.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see your point. How do you feel about regulating the industry to force insurance companies to accept those with pre-existing conditions?
 
reefedjib said:
Ok, I see your point. How do you feel about regulating the industry to force insurance companies to accept those with pre-existing conditions?
Click to expand...
Force? An insurance compamy shouldn't have the right to choose who it writes policies for? No, I do not approve.

Having said that, so long as the insurance companies are able to charge the additional premiums necessary to cover the people in question, I do not have any particular argument for NOT covering them.
 
Goobieman said:
Force? An insurance compamy shouldn't have the right to choose who it writes policies for? No, I do not approve.

Having said that, so long as the insurance companies are able to charge the additional premiums necessary to cover the people in question, I do not have any particular argument for NOT covering them.
Click to expand...

Well, I would be ****ed under your plan.

The only option I can think of is a voucher system. Tax everyone for healthcare. If you go to a private insurance company for coverage, the government will cut you a check for the amount up to what you paid.

What about the co-ops? Have you any idea what those are all about?

Otherwise, I think I just firmly landed in the public option/single payer camp.
 
reefedjib said:
Well, I would be ****ed under your plan.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear that.
Can you create a sound argument for forcing insurance companies to take on clients with pre-existing onditions and not charge additional premiums?

The only option I can think of is a voucher system. Tax everyone for healthcare. If you go to a private insurance company for coverage, the government will cut you a check for the amount up to what you paid.
Click to expand...
Ok... and how is it that I am responsible for paying for your health care?
 
Goobieman said:
Sorry to hear that.
Can you create a sound argument for forcing insurance companies to take on clients with pre-existing onditions and not charge additional premiums?
Click to expand...

Maybe because health care is a vital right that society should provide for all citizens? Like police protection.
 
Camlon said:
Maybe because health care is a vital right that society should provide for all citizens?
Click to expand...
Assume for the moment that Health Care is a right...
How does having a right to something create the ability to force others to provide you the means to exercise that right?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Sorry to hear that.
Can you create a sound argument for forcing insurance companies to take on clients with pre-existing onditions and not charge additional premiums?
Click to expand...

You are sharing risk, and this includes the ongoing cost of someone with a preexisting condition. I think diabetes may be one of the worst of these, since lifespan is long but monthly cost is high.

Goobieman said:
Ok... and how is it that I am responsible for paying for your health care?
Click to expand...

This is why I am now leaning toward single payer, even though it may be run inefficiently. Like education, everyone should be covered for health care. Everyone pays.
 
Goobieman said:
Assume for the moment that Health Care is a right...
How does having a right to something create the ability to force others to provide you the means to exercise that right?
Click to expand...

I think that people can sacrifice a little bit of their time to make sure that everyone has vital rights. To make sure that someone are not sacrificing more than other, we will need to force people.

You must remember that we live in a society, and everyone needs help from others sometimes and that we are dependent on each other. Not only would I say this is fair, but it is important for economical growth.
 
Camlon said:
I think that people can sacrifice a little bit of their time to make sure that everyone has vital rights. To make sure that someone are not sacrificing more than other, we will need to force people.

You must remember that we live in a society, and everyone needs help from others sometimes and that we are dependent on each other. Not only would I say this is fair, but it is important for economical growth.
Click to expand...
You didnt answer my question.
You think it is a good idea, and that's fine, but you have not presented an argument that necessarily relates the two concept -- "It's a good idea" is fully countered by "no, it isn't".

How does my having a right to X equate to you having some enforceable responsbility to provide me the means to exercise that right to X?
 
Goobieman said:
You didnt answer my question.
You think it is a good idea, and that's fine, but you have not presented an argument that necessarily relates the two concept -- "It's a good idea" is fully countered by "no, it isn't".

How does my having a right to X equate to you having some enforceable responsbility to provide me the means to exercise that right to X?
Click to expand...

Well, if we think about the meaning of a right. A right, is something that everyone in a society should have. This means that if a right is not being able to be provided for all by the private market, then we will need as a society to spend some of our time to make sure that all people have the rights. As a society can't in reality provide it by donations, then we will need to force people .
 
Camlon said:
Well, if we think about the meaning of a right. A right, is something that everyone in a society should have.
Click to expand...
No, a right is a freedom or a liberty that you can exercise, to the extent that does not interfere with the rights of others.

You have a right to health care, just like you have a right to a TV or a car or a telephone.

This means that if a right is not being able to be provided for all by the private market...
Click to expand...
Rights are provided for by the people that exercise them. If you do not have the means to exercise a right, then you cannot exercise that right until you do. Not having the means to exercise a right in no way creates a condition where you can force others to provide you said means.
 
reefedjib said:
You are sharing risk, and this includes the ongoing cost of someone with a preexisting condition. I think diabetes may be one of the worst of these, since lifespan is long but monthly cost is high.



This is why I am now leaning toward single payer, even though it may be run inefficiently. Like education, everyone should be covered for health care. Everyone pays.
Click to expand...

Goobieman, you didn't comment on this, but I didn't ask a question.

I was very careful to not call health care for all a right. It is not a right. It is more like education in America. Everyone has access to a public education through grade 12 and there are public universities after that for a small tuition. This is paid for through local taxes. A possible voucher system is proposed.

This is what caused me to think of using a voucher system for health care - its similarity to education. We should tax locally for health care. You are paying for those few that need extra care, like they are in special education.

So a pair of questions to you. Is education a right? How do you justify everyone paying for education?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
No, a right is a freedom or a liberty that you can exercise, to the extent that does not interfere with the rights of others.

You have a right to health care, just like you have a right to a TV or a car or a telephone.


Rights are provided for by the people that exercise them. If you do not have the means to exercise a right, then you cannot exercise that right until you do. Not having the means to exercise a right in no way creates a condition where you can force others to provide you said means.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your definition of a right. I will say that you do not have a right to a TV or a car. If you want one you will need pay. My definition of human rights follow the textbooks, which define it as "A basic right that all humans should be guaranteed" I believe the rights in a western society should at least be primary education, unemployment benefits, pretty much equal opportunities and vital health care.
[ame=http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial&hs=wcq&defl=en&q=define:human+right&ei=nRMDS_vvOYjt-Aah7vD7Dw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE]define:human right - Google-søk[/ame]
human rights - Definition of human rights plural noun from Cambridge Dictionary Online: Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
Goobieman, you didn't comment on this, but I didn't ask a question.

I was very careful to not call health care for all a right. It is not a right. It is more like education in America. Everyone has access to a public education through grade 12 and there are public universities after that for a small tuition. This is paid for through local taxes. A possible voucher system is proposed.

So a question to you. Is education a right? How do you justify everyone paying for education?
Click to expand...
Very good questons.

Two things:
First, we're discussing a federal program here. Education is and should remain a state issue, and as such the federal government should have nothing to do with it. This applies to health care as well; If a state wants to do something to this end, it is up to the state to do it.

Second, education is a basic necessity for society to function. Health care is a luxury, not a necessity; it might be an effective means to maintain certain aspects of a certain standard of living, but the 'need' for that standard of living is, at best, subjective, and at worst, narcissistic.
 
Camlon said:
I disagree with your definition of a right.
Click to expand...
Then you are making up definitions to suit your argument, which means that your argument necessarily fails.

I will say that you do not have a right to a TV or a car. If you want one you will need pay.
Click to expand...
So?
You have the right to property. So does the person that holds the property you would like to have. His right to that property necessitates that you compensate him for it, to whatever degree that you both agree. Once you make that exchange, the property then becomes yours, and you have the right toi be compensated for it, should someone else want it.

Having a right to something doesnt mean you get to exercise that right for free.

My definition of human rights follow the textbooks, which define it as "A basic right that all humans should be guaranteed" I believe this includes primary education, unemployment benefits, and vital health care.
Click to expand...
As noted before, you are making up definitions to suit your argument.
Note as well that "guaranteed" is not used in the context of "provided for" but "access to", in that the government cannot arbitrarily keep them from you.
See: the US Bill of Rights, that guarantee certain rights to the people.
 
Camlon said:
I think that people can sacrifice a little bit of their time to make sure that everyone has vital rights. To make sure that someone are not sacrificing more than other, we will need to force people.
Click to expand...

The rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness are not "vital" rights. They are rights as outlined in the Declaration of Indpendence.

Your right to life is your right to live without the threat of someone else taking your life without facing legal consequences. It is not the right to have someone else pay for your life to be extended beyond it's natural lifespan.
 
Goobieman said:
Very good questons.
Click to expand...
Why, thank you! ;)

Goobieman said:
Two things:
First, we're discussing a federal program here. Education is and should remain a state issue, and as such the federal government should have nothing to do with it. This applies to health care as well; If a state wants to do something to this end, it is up to the state to do it.
Click to expand...

A few things to be said here:
1) I agree that health care should be a states rights issue. I believe this is the Whig party position - see my blog in my sig and link to the national party website (please visit, its a brand new blog! :) ).

2) Other than NCLB, aren't there federal statutes governing that providing education is mandatory for states, even though there is limited federal financing - majority local financing? There is a Dept of Education. What does it do?

Goobieman said:
Second, education is a basic necessity for society to function. Health care is a luxury, not a necessity; it might be an effective means to maintain certain aspects of a certain standard of living, but the 'need' for that standard of living is, at best, subjective, and at worst, narcissistic.
Click to expand...

3) You are using the term 'necessity'. Is this a legal term that enforces that fact that a 12th grade education be provided to everyone. If not, what is the legal reason we have this?

4) To use your terms, I would argue that health care is not a luxury, not a right, but a necessity for a functioning society. It is an absolute embarrassment that we don't provide coverage to everyone. We don't lead the world in this regard and we should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom