• 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!

A Simple Question -

Do you trust the federal government to do what's in your best interest

  • Total voters
    63
CaptainCourtesy said:
Once you die, it's no longer a matter of life and death. Just a matter of death... or being dead, to be grammatically correct.

Logic, my dear spud. :2razz:
Click to expand...

So then healthcare isn't a matter of life and death, but simply a matter of life? Either way he's still right.

Logic, my dear CC. :2razz:
 
I enjoy arguments like they don't check themselves so we have too, aka get the government to do it.

That is always face palm worthy.
 
spud_meister said:
So then healthcare isn't a matter of life and death, but simply a matter of life? Either way he's still right.

Logic, my dear CC. :2razz:
Click to expand...

No, it is a matter of life and death... to the living. Either is a possiblity at that point. Once you are dead, only one of those two is a possibility.

Logic, again, my dear spud. :2razz:
 
Henrin said:
I enjoy arguments like they don't check themselves so we have too, aka get the government to do it.

That is always face palm worthy.
Click to expand...

And I always enyoy arguments that have no solutions to industry's lack of ability or desire to check themselves. Certainly worthy of many eyerolls.
 
I was unaware that industries checked themselves. I thought that was YOUR job.
 
Henrin said:
I was unaware that industries checked themselves. I thought that was YOUR job.
Click to expand...

Now you understand the need for regulation. Industry's don't check themselves. Why should they?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Now you understand the need for regulation. Industry's don't check themselves. Why should they?
Click to expand...

No, I don't understand it at all. You clearly don't understand my argument.
 
Henrin said:
No, I don't understand it at all. You clearly don't understand my argument.
Click to expand...

Then be my guest and explain it. I'm pretty sure I've gotten it, but there's always the possibility I could be mistaken.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The only financial assistance I would get from it, is actually getting paid what I am contracted to get paid. I see no issue with that.
Click to expand...
The patient is the one with which you have a contract. The insurance company has no obligation to you at all.


Healthcare is very seldom a matter of life and death?!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: Good one.
Click to expand...
Are you being dishonest or just stupid. I specified your specialty. I'm guessing you are just being dishonest as dishonesty is quite common with your kind.


It is my choice to accept these clients. It is my choice to want these insurance companies to abide by the rules that they set out. It is my choice to do everything I can to get regulations in place that force them to do so. If you do not like that... too bad.
Click to expand...
If they are not abiding by the rules, it is you that is letting them get away with it by continuing to accept patients that have their insurance.

Require the patient pay you and let them worry about getting reimbursed by the insurance coimpany.


The contract has more holes in it than a slice of swiss cheese... and the insurance company does everything it can to slip through those loopholes and not pay. If they will not close them... and why should they, since their purpose is not to service their customers, but to maximize profit, I will certainly encourage the government to close those loopholes so their business practices are forced to be more ethical. It is obvious that the insurance industry is inacapable of monitoring itself.
Click to expand...
So don't accept patients that have that insurance. :doh


No one NEEDS steak or loberster. They just need food. Very poor analogy.
Click to expand...
This time, based on some of your previous posts commenting on business, I think you just might be too stupid to understand. I will explain it and type real slow so you can follow along.

The point is that if someone is not paying for something themself, they would not worry about the price. Pretty simple concept but I guess it went over your head.


Does this occur? I'm sure it does, however it occurs far less often than it does with the insurance industry, where it is as common as breathing air.
Click to expand...
Got any proof of that.... didn't think so.


With providers, there are ethical sanctions for things like this. In the insurance industry, there are NO checks and balances. Regulate the hell out of them to create these checks and balances.
Click to expand...
The courts are the check on the insurance companies, but you have no standing because they do not have a contract with you.

Why don't you have the government pass laws that your can confiscate the patient's car or house if they don't pay you. They are the one's that actually owe you.

Actually laws already exist that allow you to go after assets of those that have obligations to you (your patients) that they refuse to pay. You just don't want to trouble youself to use them.

.
 
TOJ said:
The patient is the one with which you have a contract. The insurance company has no obligation to you at all.
Click to expand...

Wrong. This tells me that you don't know about this issue. When I am IN network with an insurance company, I have a contract surround their rate of payment and other issues. Standard procedure in the industry. I have a contract with them and the patient and the insurance company has an obligation to follow the contract, as do I. For example, if I agree to their reduced in-network rate, I cannot choose to charge the client an additional fee in their co-pay to make up the difference between the in-network rate and whatever my actual rate is.

So, you are completely incorrect about this.


Are you being dishonest or just stupid. I specified your specialty. I'm guessing you are just being dishonest as dishonesty is quite common with your kind.
Click to expand...

Since suicide is in the top 5 causes of death for just about any age group, and depression is the most common reason leading to suicide, again, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. And this is just one example. 10% of all folks with eating disorders, die. Perhaps you should educate yourself on this issue before you speak about it.


If they are not abiding by the rules, it is you that is letting them get away with it by continuing to accept patients that have their insurance.
Click to expand...

They are using loopholes to get away with bending the rules. More regulation will close those loopholes.

Require the patient pay you and let them worry about getting reimbursed by the insurance coimpany.
Click to expand...

In-network contracts do not allow this. Again, learn about what we are discussing.


So don't accept patients that have that insurance. :doh
Click to expand...

I already explained this. I'm not going to repeat myself to someone who is neither listening nor seems to know about what we are discussing.


This time, based on some of your previous posts commenting on business, I think you just might be too stupid to understand. I will explain it and type real slow so you can follow along.

The point is that if someone is not paying for something themself, they would not worry about the price. Pretty simple concept but I guess it went over your head.
Click to expand...

No, I was pretty clear on the difference between healthcare and other issues. You don't not seem to want to understand this diference.


Got any proof of that.... didn't think so.
Click to expand...

Well, since you made the initial accusation, please provide proof of IT. I'll wait.


The courts are the check on the insurance companies, but you have no standing because they do not have a contract with you.
Click to expand...

And I've already proven you wrong on this, so this point is irrelevant.

Why don't you have the government pass laws that your can confiscate the patient's car or house if they don't pay you. They are the one's that actually owe you.
Click to expand...

And I've already proven you wrong on this, so this point is irrelevant.


Actually laws already exist that allow you to go after assets of those that have obligations to you (your patients) that they refuse to pay. You just don't want to trouble youself to use them.
Click to expand...

And I've already proven you wrong on this, so this point is irrelevant.
 
No, because it's controlled wholly by corporate interests, and the public has little to nothing to do with it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Wrong. This tells me that you don't know about this issue. When I am IN network with an insurance company, I have a contract surround their rate of payment and other issues. Standard procedure in the industry. I have a contract with them and the patient and the insurance company has an obligation to follow the contract, as do I. For example, if I agree to their reduced in-network rate, I cannot choose to charge the client an additional fee in their co-pay to make up the difference between the in-network rate and whatever my actual rate is.

So, you are completely incorrect about this.
Click to expand...
You are providing services to the patient. They cannot force you to sign a contract to be IN Network with their insurance company.


Since suicide is in the top 5 causes of death for just about any age group, and depression is the most common reason leading to suicide, again, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. And this is just one example. 10% of all folks with eating disorders, die. Perhaps you should educate yourself on this issue before you speak about it.
Click to expand...
hmmm, must not be doing a very good job.


They are using loopholes to get away with bending the rules. More regulation will close those loopholes.
Click to expand...
You agreed to the contract by signing it. Why on earth would you sign a contract with loopholes?


In-network contracts do not allow this. Again, learn about what we are discussing.
Click to expand...
You do not have to sign an IN Network contract.


I already explained this. I'm not going to repeat myself to someone who is neither listening nor seems to know about what we are discussing.
Click to expand...
Good, I don't need to hear any more lame excuses.


No, I was pretty clear on the difference between healthcare and other issues. You don't not seem to want to understand this diference.
Click to expand...
Just because you believe treatment for mental health problems is more important than food or shelter, does not make it so.


Well, since you made the initial accusation, please provide proof of IT. I'll wait.
Click to expand...
I made no comparison, that was you.


And I've already proven you wrong on this, so this point is irrelevant.

And I've already proven you wrong on this, so this point is irrelevant.

And I've already proven you wrong on this, so this point is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
You have not proven anything. You have simply made a lot of lame excuses.

.
 
No. The government does what is in it's best interest to make itself bigger by sucking from the teet of the populace. It's like John Carpenter's THE THING, invading the individual, infecting it's cells, and then sh!tting out an abomination.
 
X Factor said:
I know what's in my best interest better than the government ever could. If anything, I think the government would quite readily screw me over if it thought that was in it's own best interest.
Click to expand...
Our government has little to nothing to less than nothing in "screwing" over its own people.
Its own people, that is everyone(particularly the wealthy), with conservatives in power, guess who gets the fillet mignon and who gets the floor sweepings....
This is not Egypt!...is it ?
Of course, we do do have the human factor, this permeates both the private and public sectors...
And for a man not to trust his own government.....something is seriously wrong.....somewhere.
 
Ed Gein said:
No. The government does what is in it's best interest to make itself bigger by sucking from the teet of the populace. It's like John Carpenter's THE THING, invading the individual, infecting it's cells, and then sh!tting out an abomination.
Click to expand...
Now wait just a minute Elmer Fudd. Either the people are sucking on the government's teat (like your Con brethren espouse at every turn), or what you say is true, or both. Which would produce a 69 of teat sucking.

So which is it?
 
Mickey Shane said:
Now wait just a minute Elmer Fudd. Either the people are sucking on the government's teat (like your Con brethren espouse at every turn), or what you say is true, or both. Which would produce a 69 of teat sucking.

So which is it?
Click to expand...

It's both. The most heinous aspect of the whole mess is that the parasitic populace does not even know they are nothing but instruments of the great scam. Look at the vermin sucking from the state, awaiting their monthly stipends as they sit like sloths. These scum may think they live the life of Riley, but they are prisoners of the umbilical cord.

The government is a being in and of itself. It's a Hydra with a million heads, taking from here, redistributing there, regulating, taxing, imprisoning, like an insatiable monster that never stops growing.

See how it all plays out? And while the game ensues, these legislators and kings get fat and rich, while they sucker the likes of the sheeple(especially the left side) by using class warfare and anti-liberty principles.
 
TOJ said:
You are providing services to the patient. They cannot force you to sign a contract to be IN Network with their insurance company.
Click to expand...

Did I say I was forced to sign a contract? See, now you are backing away from your original comment because you KNOW you were wrong. The contract IS between myself and the insurance company, so are you ready to concede that since this is the case, when the insurance company does not pay me, appropriately, my issue is with THEM?


hmmm, must not be doing a very good job.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... a non-answer to the issue. More concessions. Good.


You agreed to the contract by signing it. Why on earth would you sign a contract with loopholes?
Click to expand...

That's right... them loopholes are spelled out right in the contract right in section C8. Please stop making stuff up.


You do not have to sign an IN Network contract.
Click to expand...

So what? If I do, do you think it is appropriate for the insurance company to honor that contract? And, do you think it is appropriate for the insurance company to pay, financially, in a timely manner?


Good, I don't need to hear any more lame excuses.
Click to expand...

In other words, since you have offered nothing credible to counter anything I said, you would prefer to say nothing. Got it.


Just because you believe treatment for mental health problems is more important than food or shelter, does not make it so.
Click to expand...

Just because you WANT me to have made that argument, doesn't mean I did. Try debating what I say... I know you'll lose, but at least it will be honest.


I made no comparison, that was you.
Click to expand...

You made the accusation. Show the proof.


You have not proven anything. You have simply made a lot of lame excuses.

.
Click to expand...

Of course I've proven my position. You have offered nothing but diversions, straw man arguments, and have demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the industry. Let me know what you have something of substance to offer.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
.....
Of course I've proven my position.
.....
Click to expand...
The only thing you have proven is that you are either not capable or not willing to looking out for your own interests and instead you go whining to the govenment to protect you from those big, bad insurance companies that hide loop holes in the contracts they force you to sign.

.
 
Redress said:
Actually it's not. The difference between the left and right is how we define "looking after the countries interests".
Click to expand...

It is a balance of preserving national unity and protecting individual liberty. The more you sway to either the left or the right, the more you wish to sacrifice the liberty of individuals for the preservation of so-called national unity. The more you sway in my direction, the more you wish to protect individual liberty against the oppression of government. And given that even Mother Nature doesn't kill and starve as many individuals as governments do, I'm inclinded to be bias towards the individual.
 
Last edited:
ElijahGalt said:
It is a balance of preserving national unity and protecting individual liberty. The more you sway to either the left or the right, the more you wish to sacrifice the liberty of individuals for the preservation of so-called national unity. The more you sway in my direction, the more you wish to protect individual liberty against the oppression of government. And given that even Mother Nature doesn't kill and starve as many individuals as governments do, I'm inclinded to be bias towards the individual.
Click to expand...

I would not call it NATIONAL UNITY. I would call it the needs of society. So it comes down to balancing the rights of the individual with the needs of society and the rights we have together as a people.
 
haymarket said:
I would not call it NATIONAL UNITY. I would call it the needs of society. So it comes down to balancing the rights of the individual with the needs of society and the rights we have together as a people.
Click to expand...

If society is made up of individuals, then what are these societal needs that you speak of?
 
ElijahGalt said:
If society is made up of individuals, then what are these societal needs that you speak of?
Click to expand...

Here is your problem:

Fallacy of composition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The needs of society are different than that of solely one individual. Namely we need to be able to cooperate. If you are speaking from the liberals point of view it would not have to do with unity, but instead fairness. Liberals try and look at society as rules that we all could agree to, no matter our position in it.
 
drz-400 said:
Here is your problem:

Fallacy of composition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The needs of society are different than that of solely one individual. Namely we need to be able to cooperate. If you are speaking from the liberals point of view it would not have to do with unity, but instead fairness. Liberals try and look at society as rules that we all could agree to, no matter our position in it.
Click to expand...

Liberals only care about the fairness of liberty and the equal protection of rights. Other than that, a liberal is in no theoretical position to care about anything beyond the individual rights of society. The individual rights of society are those needs which need be protected. And cooperation and unity are about the same.
 
Last edited:
ElijahGalt said:
If society is made up of individuals, then what are these societal needs that you speak of?
Click to expand...

Individuals are loners who live on their own island.

The rest of us live in society as a member of a larger group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom