• 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!

Health Care Question (and Abortion)

Health Care and Abortion which do you choose

  • Against socialized medicine and abortion let the baby die

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • against socialized medicine for abortion let the baby die

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • for socialized medicine and against abortion let the baby live

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • for socialized medicine and for abortion let the baby live

    Votes: 5 62.5%

  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
30,531
Reaction score
14,937
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First read the question then answer the poll

A baby is born with a serious medical condition, one that will cost $200 000 to cure. The parents do not have medical insurance and can not afoord to pay for the treatment. No private charity or group is willing to pay the bill either. The hospital is going to end treatment in 24 hr unless the government steps in

What should happen accoring to you

The government is going to have to pay if the baby is going to live
 
Last edited:
I am against abortion and I think the government should pay for this child. What society would let a child die over dollars? You can't put a price on human life. It's not the child's fault that the parents can't afford to pay for treatment, why should that be its death? The government should absolutely pay the tab and lend assistance.
 
I am against abortion and I think the government should pay for this child. What society would let a child die over dollars? You can't put a price on human life. It's not the child's fault that the parents can't afford to pay for treatment, why should that be its death? The government should absolutely pay the tab and lend assistance.

So you tend to support socialized medicine then?

Meaning the government should step in and pay for medical conditions for people who need help?
 
So you tend to support socialized medicine then?

Meaning the government should step in and pay for medical conditions for people who need help?

Yes, I support socialized medicine to the degree that the government should help and healthcare should be available for everyone. Although I am not for an outright complete control over the healthcare system by the government. I believe in doctors independence and insurance for those who may chose to have it. I think the government should help and provide care for all, but they shouldn't "own" or control all the healthcare facilities and doctors.
 
None of the above. In this situation, in this country, the care would likely be provided regardless of the ability to pay or lack or resources.
 
None of the above. In this situation, in this country, the care would likely be provided regardless of the ability to pay or lack or resources.

By who?

Someone will have to pay
 
Not really. There are plenty of situations where there is no payment for treatment provided. We see it regularly with premature neonates and critically ill adults or children. The medical care providers basically have to absorb the cost.
 
Not really. There are plenty of situations where there is no payment for treatment provided. We see it regularly with premature neonates and critically ill adults or children. The medical care providers basically have to absorb the cost.

So your option is to force the medical providers to pay for the sick and ill?

What if they decide to do the bare minimum which will result in the death of the baby?

I believe most medical care providers will not buy the expensive drugs that certain types of cancer require, but they will provide medical care as the person dies (from the lack of the expensive drugs)
 
It's not my option to force anyone to do anything. That's just what happens in this country. We provide care to those who really need it, regardless of the money involved. It's how we are as a medical profession, and as a society.
 
Not really. There are plenty of situations where there is no payment for treatment provided. We see it regularly with premature neonates and critically ill adults or children. The medical care providers basically have to absorb the cost.

Correction, these costs get added onto the bills for those who actually can pay... including the insurance companies, the government, and the patients who actually have money.

This is why I support requiring all people to have health insurance. At least then everyone will be paying into the system.

I don't care if the government runs health care... it will still be the doctors making the recommendations both for individual patients and for major policy changes.

And I am against abortion... not to the point of considering it a crime; I simply think that if you screw up in life you need to deal with the consequences. Life is too precious. However I am OK with abortion in a rape case or when the mother's life is threatened by the birth.
 
Last edited:
Letting a sick baby die is not abortion. However, it would be immoral to let the baby die.

This is, in fact, one of the reasons I think we need socialized health care. Right now we have a hodge podge of laws that achieve care for the poor in an extremely expensive and inefficient manner. It would be better if we had a coherent scheme that could actually bring costs down, causing everyone to pay less (whether its taxes or private payments, it's still money out of your pocket). The short sightedness of people amazes me.

(disclaimer: I do understand that certain people have a problem with it based on their idea of rights and responsibilities of society and individuals, that at least makes sense.)
 
Last edited:
So you tend to support socialized medicine then?

Meaning the government should step in and pay for medical conditions for people who need help?

Well, at least you only waited till post number 3 to show plainly that this was a bait thread with the intent simply to put a very extreme, emotional situation with a very defined state of circumstances to then use it as a means of saying that if you support something with that therefore you must support it with all.

This of course is ludicrous.

Believing perhaps that a child, born into this world without any choice on its own needing medical attention right off or dying and having no ability to support itself, should have its medical expenses cared for does not equate to having to believe in all of socialized medicine nor that those who need help must be supported.

There is a large difference between a newborn baby and a person who is 25years old and chose that having money to for a new video game every few weeks and happy hour every night instead of buying insurance and then gets cancer.

There is a large difference between a newborn baby and a person who is sick and someone needing medical attention and can't pay for it because he's made no strong effort in the past months to get a job.

There is a large difference between a newborn baby and a person who can't keep a job because they continue to drink, smoke pot, or do hard drugs that causes them to either repeatedly miss work or fail drug tests causing them not to be able to keep down a job.

There is a large difference even between a newborn baby and a person who just unfortunantly has fell on a stretch of "bad luck" and can't afford care.

In just about every single one of the situation above those individuals at some point in their life did things that likely lead to the situation they are in. The young guy chose to go for leisure over insurance. The next guy chose to coast in life rather than focus completely on finding a job, any job, until he got one. The next guy chose to take his substance of choice. And even the one with "bad luck" chose to not take time to save previously in case of situations where "bad luck" may happen.

The baby made no choice. The baby was born and then had issues. One could blame the parents, but that is no different than blaming the parents of the drug addict or the irresponsable youth for bad upbringing.

Your attempt at equating two things that are largely different, hoping and praying to prey on peoples emotions by using the example of a baby, is a disgusting debate tactic and one that frankly is plainly transparent.

Does the situation we have currently work 100% of the time or with utmost efficiency? No. Are there situations, like the one you describe above, that throw it out of whack? Definitely. Does that magically mean that the only answer, or the main answer, to solving those situations where there are issues is to socialize the entire system for everyone? Absolutely not. The dishonest attempt to present the situation in such stark either or options is based in anything but reality.
 
I am against abortion and I think the government should pay for this child. What society would let a child die over dollars? You can't put a price on human life. It's not the child's fault that the parents can't afford to pay for treatment, why should that be its death? The government should absolutely pay the tab and lend assistance.

Digs, You just bought into a Red Herring argument.

Medical decisions such as these aren't (legally) made as economic decisions. In a scenerio such as the one described, the procedure would be performed and the financing would be dealt with after the fact.
 
So your option is to force the medical providers to pay for the sick and ill?

What if they decide to do the bare minimum which will result in the death of the baby?

I believe most medical care providers will not buy the expensive drugs that certain types of cancer require, but they will provide medical care as the person dies (from the lack of the expensive drugs)

As you said, the baby is going to die regardless.

Aren't we all?
 
Correction, these costs get added onto the bills for those who actually can pay... including the insurance companies, the government, and the patients who actually have money.

This is why I support requiring all people to have health insurance. At least then everyone will be paying into the system.

I don't care if the government runs health care... it will still be the doctors making the recommendations both for individual patients and for major policy changes.

And I am against abortion... not to the point of considering it a crime; I simply think that if you screw up in life you need to deal with the consequences. Life is too precious. However I am OK with abortion in a rape case or when the mother's life is threatened by the birth.

I agree with many of your points but wanted to add tat when a hospital does "pro-bono" procedures they can also "write them off" and (in my opinion) should get tax incentives (rewards) for doing so.
 
Well, at least you only waited till post number 3 to show plainly that this was a bait thread with the intent simply to put a very extreme, emotional situation with a very defined state of circumstances to then use it as a means of saying that if you support something with that therefore you must support it with all.

This of course is ludicrous.

Believing perhaps that a child, born into this world without any choice on its own needing medical attention right off or dying and having no ability to support itself, should have its medical expenses cared for does not equate to having to believe in all of socialized medicine nor that those who need help must be supported.

There is a large difference between a newborn baby and a person who is 25years old and chose that having money to for a new video game every few weeks and happy hour every night instead of buying insurance and then gets cancer.

There is a large difference between a newborn baby and a person who is sick and someone needing medical attention and can't pay for it because he's made no strong effort in the past months to get a job.

There is a large difference between a newborn baby and a person who can't keep a job because they continue to drink, smoke pot, or do hard drugs that causes them to either repeatedly miss work or fail drug tests causing them not to be able to keep down a job.

There is a large difference even between a newborn baby and a person who just unfortunantly has fell on a stretch of "bad luck" and can't afford care.

In just about every single one of the situation above those individuals at some point in their life did things that likely lead to the situation they are in. The young guy chose to go for leisure over insurance. The next guy chose to coast in life rather than focus completely on finding a job, any job, until he got one. The next guy chose to take his substance of choice. And even the one with "bad luck" chose to not take time to save previously in case of situations where "bad luck" may happen.

The baby made no choice. The baby was born and then had issues. One could blame the parents, but that is no different than blaming the parents of the drug addict or the irresponsable youth for bad upbringing.

Your attempt at equating two things that are largely different, hoping and praying to prey on peoples emotions by using the example of a baby, is a disgusting debate tactic and one that frankly is plainly transparent.

Does the situation we have currently work 100% of the time or with utmost efficiency? No. Are there situations, like the one you describe above, that throw it out of whack? Definitely. Does that magically mean that the only answer, or the main answer, to solving those situations where there are issues is to socialize the entire system for everyone? Absolutely not. The dishonest attempt to present the situation in such stark either or options is based in anything but reality.
Ask him how many conservatives does he know that walk away from their children because their children are unable to provide for their own healthcare.
 
Correction, these costs get added onto the bills for those who actually can pay... including the insurance companies, the government, and the patients who actually have money.

You're right to a certain extent. It does add a financial burden to all of us who do pay. However, requiring everyone to carry insurance will add a larger burden. The way social welfare systems are set up in this country, adding millions more to the insured rolls is going to cost us much more in the long run, because people who "can't afford it" are going to have it paid by the half of us who are paying all the bills, especially if the pre-existing conditions portion of insurance is taken out.
 
I agree with many of your points but wanted to add that when a hospital does "pro-bono" procedures they can also "write them off" and (in my opinion) should get tax incentives (rewards) for doing so.

Drives me nutz!
 
Well, at least you only waited till post number 3 to show plainly that this was a bait thread with the intent simply to put a very extreme, emotional situation with a very defined state of circumstances to then use it as a means of saying that if you support something with that therefore you must support it with all.

Yep- it was pretty obvious based on the poll options.:)
 
You're right to a certain extent. It does add a financial burden to all of us who do pay. However, requiring everyone to carry insurance will add a larger burden. The way social welfare systems are set up in this country, adding millions more to the insured rolls is going to cost us much more in the long run, because people who "can't afford it" are going to have it paid by the half of us who are paying all the bills, especially if the pre-existing conditions portion of insurance is taken out.

Very well stated.

And if I can only add one thing,... "Imagine adding 20-30 Million new patients to the rolls and with no significant increase to the numbers of doctors and other staff."

You could probably say it better than I.

I don't have your way with words... But do you see my point?
 
You're right to a certain extent. It does add a financial burden to all of us who do pay. However, requiring everyone to carry insurance will add a larger burden. The way social welfare systems are set up in this country, adding millions more to the insured rolls is going to cost us much more in the long run, because people who "can't afford it" are going to have it paid by the half of us who are paying all the bills, especially if the pre-existing conditions portion of insurance is taken out.

Yeah, I know.... God I just wish all people could make a living for themselves. Would make everyone else's lives so much easier. :waiting:
 
Yeah, I know.... God I just wish all people could make a living for themselves. Would make everyone else's lives so much easier. :waiting:

Yeah, but it won't happen until there's no more "free" money left.:roll:
 
First read the question then answer the poll

A baby is born with a serious medical condition, one that will cost $200 000 to cure. The parents do not have medical insurance and can not afoord to pay for the treatment. No private charity or group is willing to pay the bill either. The hospital is going to end treatment in 24 hr unless the government steps in

What should happen accoring to you

The government is going to have to pay if the baby is going to live
what's your point?
 
Yeah, but it won't happen until there's no more "free" money left.:roll:

Yeah, but the intent of those programs is to help people get back on their feet... they weren't intended to allow people to survive off of them. Sometimes I wish that those programs would simply end... Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc... but who knows what would happen then? What a mess.
 
Not really. There are plenty of situations where there is no payment for treatment provided. We see it regularly with premature neonates and critically ill adults or children. The medical care providers basically have to absorb the cost.

I think the child should be taken care of by the hospital. However, a reality check would suggest that those cost will be passed on in increase costs to future patients and insurance companies.
 
Back
Top Bottom