• 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 support single-payer health care?

Do you support single-payer health care?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 43.7%
  • No

    Votes: 36 50.7%
  • Maybe, if

    Votes: 4 5.6%

  • Total voters
    71
Absolutely...its not difficult at all. Police are a function of government because we decided that they were.

No, police are a function of government because laws are meaningless without an enforcement mechanism.

Duh.

Health care isn't a function of government because stealing isn't a proper function of government.
 
Nah - single payer health care is nothing more than another government dependency. I heard a stat tonight that 58% of people in America are dependent upon the government in some way or another (SS, State, Local, Federal employee, Military, etc..) but I can't validate it - but true or not, this is just another way to entrench more dependency.

How about this: We kill the insurance system all together, people buy Catastrophic Health Insurance that is only used in obviously, catastrophic circumstances, and when you need to see the doctor, go to the hospital emergency room you pay the amount needed. I think back in the 70's my mom paid 25 bucks per visit to the doctor for me and my sisters. We didn't whip out the health insurance card because the way we use it.. it's not "insurance". What do you think would happen if every time you needed to get your car serviced with tires or an oil change - you placed a claim to your auto insurance company? Think it would go up? Same thing happening with "health insurance"...
 
I don't think it is either. Dennis Kucinich, perhaps one of the biggest, if not the biggest, supporters of single-payer not for profit health care is saying now is not the time. One wonders when it will be though.

Never, of course.

It's not the government's job to provide health care. Read the Constitution.
 
How about this: We kill the insurance system all together, people buy Catastrophic Health Insurance that is only used in obviously, catastrophic circumstances, and when you need to see the doctor, go to the hospital emergency room you pay the amount needed. I think back in the 70's my mom paid 25 bucks per visit to the doctor for me and my sisters. We didn't whip out the health insurance card because the way we use it.. it's not "insurance". What do you think would happen if every time you needed to get your car serviced with tires or an oil change - you placed a claim to your auto insurance company? Think it would go up? Same thing happening with "health insurance"...

There's 2 closely related flaws in this plan.

1. Everyone has a different definition of 'catastrophic circumstances'. Is a heart attack catastrophic? What about diabetes (which is likely to cost far more in the long term than the heart attack)?

2. If you're poor, even something relatively minor like an emergency room visit for a broken bone can be 'catastrophic' if you don't have the money to pay the bill.
 
There's 2 closely related flaws in this plan.

1. Everyone has a different definition of 'catastrophic circumstances'. Is a heart attack catastrophic? What about diabetes (which is likely to cost far more in the long term than the heart attack)?
Well, the insurance company - a private one - will define what catastrophic means. And the buyer can choose their definition or another company's definition.

2. If you're poor, even something relatively minor like an emergency room visit for a broken bone can be 'catastrophic' if you don't have the money to pay the bill.
That's motivation to not stay poor. What happens is, those who cannot afford it go to clinics and or get charity.

Let's just be clear... we lived in this world already. Your parents and grandparents lived in this world without health insurance. We seemed to survive, we can survive again. If you want to help the poor, you pay for them.
 
Never, of course.

It's not the government's job to provide health care. Read the Constitution.

Are you sure you've read it? Because by the way I read it, providing health care to its citizens is very much within the powers of our government (specifically congress).

The US Constitution Article I Section 8 said:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Emphasis mine.

Providing health care could certainly be argued to be 'providing for the general welfare' of the United States.
 
Let's just be clear... we lived in this world already. Your parents and grandparents lived in this world without health insurance. We seemed to survive, we can survive again. If you want to help the poor, you pay for them.

I'm sorry, but "it used to be that way and people survived it" isn't a very compelling argument.

At one point women couldn't vote and people survived it.

At one point blacks were slaves and people survived it.

At one point we were a British colony and people survived it.

At one point 'the humours of the body' were considered the height of medical care and people survived it.

Should we bring all those things back too?
 
NO. Less government, not more.

I agree with Black.

I am not against our government providing health care in theory and I feel that many that are against the single payer option may agree. However I am against a single payer system because it is very doubtful that our government could ever provide it in a efficient and effective way. It is far more likely it will become bloated and corrupt and end up harming the country just as many other projects have done.
 
No, police are a function of government because laws are meaningless without an enforcement mechanism.

Duh.

Health care isn't a function of government because stealing isn't a proper function of government.

So government should not provide any roads, regulate the airways, we shouldn't have any parks...we should leave all of this up to private industry to regulate right?
 
Aren't you already paying for all the uninsured people who go to emergency rooms without insurance?
Unfortunately yes. So?
How does that counter my point?
 
Glinda said:
Why yes, I have. Here's a little shocking information for you: Medicare is not a universal health system - it's for people over 65 years of age.

No, really? Well if they can't handle medical coverage for people over 65, how the hell are we supposed to trust them to handle it for everyone? :roll:

Medicare's financial issues are not the result of government mismanagement.

Actually it is. Those same people who are now retired and pulling Medicare still put into the system for decades before they retired. There should have been a massive surplus in the system from what the Baby Boomers put into it. Instead, the system, like Social Security, has been plundered all along, even though everyone knew the situation we'd one day find ourselves in. Nobody in government looks to the future, they only care about today. Now that we're in the situation we've known was coming for decades... surprise, surprise... WE HAVE NO MONEY!

And what is causing the increase in the cost of providing health care services?

OUR PROFIT-DRIVEN HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY.

Actually, the insurance industry and ambulance-chasing lawyers are doing most of it. Back when I was a kid, if my parents wanted to take me to the doctor, they took $100 (or whatever it cost, I don't remember) and I saw the doctor. There wasn't any insurance and costs were relatively low. It was just as profit-driven then as it is today, there just weren't as many costs built into the system as we have today.

Please pretend you have a clue what you're talking about.
 
I'm certainly not opposed to making it so.

Great, let us know when you manage to pass a Constitutional amendment. Until you do, it's not the government's job.
 
I'm sorry, but "it used to be that way and people survived it" isn't a very compelling argument.
It is if you're arguing that something is 'necessary'.
 
Emphasis mine.
Providing health care could certainly be argued to be 'providing for the general welfare' of the United States.
This is old and tired.
The clause you cite gives the power to tax.
It does NOT grant the power to create programs that provide for the common defense or the general welfare -- the clauses found in the remainder of the section do this.

If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.
 
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Goober said:
It does NOT grant the power to create programs that provide for the common defense or the general welfare
Your interpretation was rejected by the American people, boo dog. Get over it.
 
If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.
The same can be said your interpretation, boo dog.

Section Eight was made to be intentionally ambiguous. It can be reasonably interpreted to limit the powers granted to Congress or to grant it virtually unlimited power.
 
Who says Medicare can't handle medical coverage for people over 65?

Are we going to have to pay for medicare and Obamacare? There's going to be some mighty pissed off working class folks, if that's the case.
 
If your talking about paying for the affordability tax credits provided for in the Bill passed by the House, only we rich folk will be taxed to pay for those.

Till when 2016 when it will end up costing so much we will all be taxed for it.
 
This is old and tired.
The clause you cite gives the power to tax.
It does NOT grant the power to create programs that provide for the common defense or the general welfare -- the clauses found in the remainder of the section do this.

If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.

Clearly the list of programs further down in that clause is not exhaustive. We have lots of programs that exist to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare of our people that aren't in that list.

The air force isn't mentioned in that list, should we get rid of it too?

The FAA isn't mentioned in that list either.

Nor is the FCC.

None of these things are in the constitution, because the things they regulate or relate to didn't exist when the constitution was written.

And neither did health insurance.

If you want to argue that government-run health insurance is a bad idea, then more power too you, and I look forward to the debate. But saying that we can't have it because the constitution doesn't allow it is a cheap cop-out and completely untrue.
 
Clearly the list of programs further down in that clause is not exhaustive.
Yes, it is. That's why they were specified in the Constitution.
If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.

We have lots of programs that exist to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare of our people that aren't in that list.
And?
All this means is that Congress was not given the power to create them, and that their creation was extra-constitutional.

The air force isn't mentioned in that list, should we get rid of it too?
The USAF was originally part of the army, and was reorganized into it son wervice in 1947. I have argued that it should be re-absorbed back into the army.

The FAA isn't mentioned in that list either.
Nor is the FCC.
Both are directly related to the interstate commerce clause.

None of these things are in the constitution, because the things they regulate or relate to didn't exist when the constitution was written.
Your argument here has been addressed, countered and mooted.

And neither did health insurance.
So?
Regulation of health insurance is provided for in the interstae commerce clause; there is absolutely NO power granted to the federal government that allows it to PROVIDE health care.

But saying that we can't have it because the constitution doesn't allow it is a cheap cop-out and completely untrue.
It is only a cheap cop-out if you arent concerned about the government violating the constitution so it can do something that you thing is a 'good idea', and it is -completely- true.

-The clause you cite gives the power to tax.
-It does NOT grant the power to create programs that provide for the common defense or the general welfare -- the clauses found in the remainder of the section do this.
-If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom