• 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!

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Status
Not open for further replies.
Conservative said:
Most states aren't involved but the citizens of the state are the ones that pay for the ER services of the uninsured, not the people of your state
Click to expand...
do you find that paying for emergency room visits by uninsured persons to be a good use for your tax dollars? would it benefit you (save you money, save tax dollars) if persons were required to have insurance? or, would you prefer those who have no insurance to just go home and die, or die in the streets? either way, it is going to cost something....which is your preference?
 
randel said:
do you find that paying for emergency room visits by uninsured persons to be a good use for your tax dollars? would it benefit you (save you money, save tax dollars) if persons were required to have insurance? or, would you prefer those who have no insurance to just go home and die, or die in the streets? either way, it is going to cost something....which is your preference?
Click to expand...


False choice. *buzzer* fallacy. Try again.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
False choice. *buzzer* fallacy. Try again.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Not a false choice. Don't be a chicken -- answer the question.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Those graphs explain the cause of the deficit, which is what caused the debt to grow.

I thought your post was about the debt? If it wasn't about the debt, what was it about?
Click to expand...
Your graphs show Bush debt from 2001 - 2009. I am talking about the debt that has accumulated since 2009 when Obama took office.
 
AdamT said:
That wasn't my question. Why aren't you arguing for the repeal of the law that Reagan signed, mandating that emergency rooms must care for anyone who comes in the door regardless of their ability to pay?
Click to expand...

The question is, are Federal Mandates for healthcare legal and why do you support them?
 
randel said:
answer the question...if you can
Click to expand...

It's a false dichotomy.

But let's break up your loaded false dichotomy of a question.

do you find that paying for emergency room visits by uninsured persons to be a good use for your tax dollars?
Click to expand...

No, but emergency rooms will still exist under any model, and people would still go there a lot, and not pay the full cost of their visit. And another thing, it's not just ER care. That's just step one. The same uninsured people get critical care, general medical care, psychiatric care.... anywhere in the hospital. The ER is just where they go first. What we're talking about here is hospital care.

would it benefit you (save you money, save tax dollars) if persons were required to have insurance?
Click to expand...

Only to the degree that people who can afford health insurance opt not to buy it. Requiring people to buy something they can't afford doesn't help me and it certainly doesn't help them. And the mandate doesn't change the number of people needing expensive health care and it doesn't make the health care any less expensive. It just delays an insurance death spiral.

or, would you prefer those who have no insurance to just go home and die, or die in the streets?
Click to expand...

Some people should go home and die, even if they have insurance. It would be better for them and their families. Keeping all sorts of dying people on life support in a critical care unit for tens of thousands of dollars per day (that they're not paying) until the family can finally come to grips with the fact that the loved one's time has come is an unaffordable and irrational way to approach death. Do you know how much we (as a nation) spend on end-of-life comfort care and Hail Mary desperation attempts to prolong life?

either way, it is going to cost something....which is your preference?
Click to expand...

My preference is not reflected in your false dichotomy.
 
Conservative said:
The question is, are Federal Mandates for healthcare legal and why do you support them?
Click to expand...

No, that was not the question. To reiterate, the question was: if you think health care is 100% a question of personal responsibility, why do you think state governments should legislate on health care?
 
randel said:
answer the question...if you can
Click to expand...


I prefer that the insurance industry be reigned in on passing costs along to other paying members, ie: hospital emergency room costs skyrocketing due to lack of actual paying people, therefore an asprin cost you $10.

Insurance is a scam. IF people were able to actually control what they pay for services through say HSA's cost would plumet.

But this thread is about the fake jobs numbers, and how Obama is touting 240K jobs as a success....Can we stay on topic?


j-mac
 
Neomalthusian said:
It's a false dichotomy.

But let's break up your loaded false dichotomy of a question.



No, but emergency rooms will still exist under any model, and people would still go there a lot, and not pay the full cost of their visit. And another thing, it's not just ER care. That's just step one. The same uninsured people get critical care, general medical care, psychiatric care.... anywhere in the hospital. The ER is just where they go first. What we're talking about here is hospital care.



Only to the degree that people who can afford health insurance opt not to buy it. Requiring people to buy something they can't afford doesn't help me and it certainly doesn't help them. And the mandate doesn't change the number of people needing expensive health care and it doesn't make the health care any less expensive. It just delays an insurance death spiral.



Some people should go home and die, even if they have insurance. It would be better for them and their families. Keeping all sorts of dying people on life support in a critical care unit for tens of thousands of dollars per day (that they're not paying) until the family can finally come to grips with the fact that the loved one's time has come is an unaffordable and irrational way to approach death. Do you know how much we (as a nation) spend on end-of-life comfort care and Hail Mary desperation attempts to prolong life?



My preference is not reflected in your false dichotomy.
Click to expand...
then by all means, what would be your preference? you seem to find it easy to criticize, how would you handle the situation? offer a plan....
 
Neomalthusian said:
It's a false dichotomy.

But let's break up your loaded false dichotomy of a question.



No, but emergency rooms will still exist under any model, and people would still go there a lot, and not pay the full cost of their visit. And another thing, it's not just ER care. That's just step one. The same uninsured people get critical care, general medical care, psychiatric care.... anywhere in the hospital. The ER is just where they go first. What we're talking about here is hospital care.
Click to expand...

Not true. If ERs were not forced to accept patients regardless of their ability to pay (thanks to a law signed by Reagan), they would not accept patients who couldn't pay. That's why Reagan signed the bill into law.


Only to the degree that people who can afford health insurance opt not to buy it. Requiring people to buy something they can't afford doesn't help me and it certainly doesn't help them. And the mandate doesn't change the number of people needing expensive health care and it doesn't make the health care any less expensive. It just delays an insurance death spiral.
Click to expand...

The HCAA does not require people who can't afford insurance to buy insurance. It requires people to pay according to their ability to pay.


Some people should go home and die, even if they have insurance. It would be better for them and their families. Keeping all sorts of dying people on life support in a critical care unit for tens of thousands of dollars per day (that they're not paying) until the family can finally come to grips with the fact that the loved one's time has come is an unaffordable and irrational way to approach death. Do you know how much we (as a nation) spend on end-of-life comfort care and Hail Mary desperation attempts to prolong life?
Click to expand...

That's a weak dodge. What about people who could be treated successfully if they had insurance? Should they be put on the street to die if they can't afford to pay?
 
j-mac said:
I prefer that the insurance industry be reigned in on passing costs along to other paying members, ie: hospital emergency room costs skyrocketing due to lack of actual paying people, therefore an asprin cost you $10.

Insurance is a scam. IF people were able to actually control what they pay for services through say HSA's cost would plumet.

But this thread is about the fake jobs numbers, and how Obama is touting 240K jobs as a success....Can we stay on topic?


j-mac
Click to expand...
perhaps you should talk to your buddy conservative, since he brought it up......
 
randel said:
perhaps you should talk to your buddy conservative, since he brought it up......
Click to expand...


Jobs, man Jobs...Got anything, anything at all? Randel?...Randel?....Bueler?



j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Jobs, man Jobs...Got anything, anything at all? Randel?...Randel?....Bueler?



j-mac
Click to expand...
again, read for comprehension, your boy con brought it up...don't like the topic, either go jump his ass, or don't post here, simple as....
 
randel said:
again, read for comprehension, your boy con brought it up...don't like the topic, either go jump his ass, or don't post here, simple as....
Click to expand...

Boy you libs are sure intent on telling people what to do today....Here is one for ya....Why don't you get back on topic? Here I'll help you out, seeing as that I know that it would be hard for you...

The US economy created 243,000 jobs in December, marking the seventh month in a row of gains, official figures show.

The rise was much more than expected. Analysts had forecast an increase of about 150,000 jobs.
The unemployment rate dropped to 8.3%, which was the lowest rate in nearly three years, down from a revised 8.5% in December.
Employers have added an average of 201,000 jobs per month in the past three months.

BBC News - US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January
Click to expand...


There is the opening article for you...Now, what are your thoughts, Or YOU don't have to participate.


j-mac
 
AdamT said:
No, that was not the question. To reiterate, the question was: if you think health care is 100% a question of personal responsibility, why do you think state governments should legislate on health care?
Click to expand...

Yes, i believe healthcare is 100% personal responsibility. if the state residents want to support a universal healthcare program in their state then that is within their rights, no such rights exist for a one size fits all Federal Program
 
j-mac said:
Boy you libs are sure intent on telling people what to do today....Here is one for ya....Why don't you get back on topic? Here I'll help you out, seeing as that I know that it would be hard for you...




There is the opening article for you...Now, what are your thoughts, Or YOU don't have to participate.


j-mac
Click to expand...
i'll say this real slow for you........go talk to your boy conservative......
 
Conservative said:
Yes, i believe healthcare is 100% personal responsibility. if the state residents want to support a universal healthcare program in their state then that is within their rights, no such rights exist for a one size fits all Federal Program
Click to expand...
better stay on topic con, your boy j-mac is getting a bit pissy....lol
 
randel said:
better stay on topic con, your boy j-mac is getting a bit pissy....lol
Click to expand...

Better be careful randal or he’ll hurl a bunch of random numbers at ya.:(
 
AdamT said:
Not true. If ERs were not forced to accept patients regardless of their ability to pay (thanks to a law signed by Reagan), they would not accept patients who couldn't pay. That's why Reagan signed the bill into law.
Click to expand...

That damn Reagan. (seriously.)

The HCAA does not require people who can't afford insurance to buy insurance. It requires people to pay according to their ability to pay.
Click to expand...

It requires people to purchase a service from a private company that they might not want, or that might not be a good deal. Where's an incentive for insurance cost containment if no one is allowed to refuse the purchase? An individual mandate makes these companies a de facto arm of government, makes the premiums a de facto tax, and therefore gives the private companies the ability to levy the tax. How will this bring health care prices down? Insurance companies will now reimburse MORE care, expanding access, and therefore expanding cost, and pumping premiums higher to cover those. It throws fuel on the fire. It makes our REAL problem (cost) worse by supposedly alleviating our FAKE problem (access/universal coverage).

That's a weak dodge. What about people who could be treated successfully if they had insurance? Should they be put on the street to die if they can't afford to pay?
Click to expand...

It's not a weak dodge. In ANY insurance system there has to be rationing, and costs rise when there isn't enough rationing. When it comes to rationing, you have to start at the most wasteful, which is end-of-life hospital care. People who are going to die anyway don't need blank checks from the pool of policyholders or taxpayers to be keeping their bodies operational delaying the inevitable. That's just one example of it technically being a good thing if more people went home to die instead of drained other people's dollars on their way out. Most liberals even start to acknowledge this when they start looking into Medicare unsustainability and the number of dollars wasted artificially keeping dead and dying people alive.

People who could be treated successfully with insurance should receive the treatment if that treatment is covered by the insurance, or should have the choice to pay for it if it's not covered, or just not receive it if they can neither pay for it nor is it covered. But as I said above, there have to be limits. There has to be a cost-containment strategy that leaves some people S.O.L. No matter what the system, you have to ration hard.

Unless you do away with all government-involved health programs and return to a cash-only system. That too leaves a lot of people S.O.L., but when you stop PAYING FOR things that are overpriced, the prices necessarily start to come down. And that's what we need most of all: for actual health care service prices to come down within people's ability to just purchase them.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Talk about extreme? That makes no sense, no one is talking about doing away with the funding for the govt, just reducing the spending.
Click to expand...
Why? Why are you against letting people keep more of their money all of a sudden?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom