• 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!

Obama calls for overhaul of U.S. health care system

tlmorg02 said:
I do not see what it is you are seeing, but tell me then, how do you think healthcare should be remedied. If it continues as is, then companies will no longer be capable of providing their employees coverage, and no one can afford the rates on their own.
Click to expand...
If no one can afford the insurance rates, the insurance companies will go out of business. This will force health care costs down.
 
Goobieman said:
If no one can afford the insurance rates, the insurance companies will go out of business. This will force health care costs down.
Click to expand...

Forcing insurance companies out of business will not reduce the costs that hospitals charge for services. The average ER visit costs $6000 and insurance providers pay only a fraction of that amount as per their agreements with healthcare providers. Should doctors go to school and acquire all of the debt just to practice medicine for free?
 
tlmorg02 said:
I do not see what it is you are seeing, but tell me then, how do you think healthcare should be remedied. If it continues as is, then companies will no longer be capable of providing their employees coverage, and no one can afford the rates on their own.
Click to expand...

I think alot of people agree on having something be done. I'm certainley one of them myself and have offered up some ideas or areas I think need to be looked at. They are in this thread. But that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to embrace UHC. I don't know if Keyorthe embraces any of those ideas, but they have been present in this overall discussion, by many people.
 
Goobieman said:
If no one can afford the insurance rates, the insurance companies will go out of business. This will force health care costs down.
Click to expand...

You'll have to explain that one to me.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Forcing insurance companies out of business will not reduce the costs that hospitals charge for services.
Click to expand...
Sure it will. Helath care charges will drop to whatever the market will bear; if the bill is paid by the end-user (the patient), it will drop even further.

You can put wehatever price tag you want on a commodity -- if that price is too high, people won't buy it and you will be forced to adjust your price (assuming that you want to stay in business).
 
Goobieman said:
Sure it will. Helath care charges will drop to whatever the market will bear; if the bill is paid by the end-user (the patient), it will drop even further.

You can put wehatever price tag you want on a commodity -- if that price is too high, people won't buy it and you will be forced to adjust your price (assuming that you want to stay in business).
Click to expand...


Healthcare is not a commodity, it is a necessity. People will not quit getting sick because insurance companies go out of business, they will just acquire medical debt, or the government will indeed step in a that point and UHC will be achieved.

The solution is Preventative Healthcare!!! Insurance companies will have to say good-bye to the extreme profits that allow them to give CEO's like Larry Glasscock of Anthem, $4million annual bonuses while shipping jobs overseas. At the same time, insurance companies, as Cap. C. said, dictate how medicine is practiced. If private insurance were to take the approach of dental insurance for example, and provide free preventative medicine, then costs would go down overall as people would not wait until they have full-blown cancer before they seek costly treatment.
 
WI Crippler said:
The hippocratic oath, so far as I know, is not covered or discussed in the Constitution, therefore it is not a right, but rather a declaration from within the medical community.
Click to expand...

Does it have to be in the Constitution in order for it to be a right? :confused:

If hospitals treat anyone who needs to be treated, then who pays for it? My guess... American taxpayers.

So again I ask... is healthcare a right for every American? It's either a yes or a no. If it's a no, they you're current system is the way to go. Insurance companies can decided what is allowed based-on a person's coverage.

And for those that do not have any insurance, the taxpayer foots the bill, which is kinda rediculous when you think about it.


UHC is not needed for them to uphold their Hippocratic oath.
Click to expand...

Right. But it's still taxpayers that pay, no? And--bottom line-- many who do not have insurance, do fall through the cracks. You and I both know that. They delay seeing a doctor because they do not want to go through the ordeal of paperwork, and being grilled for money cuz I do know that's what happens.

Also I'd like to hear the argument that a UHC system would be more efficient in the delivery of healthcare to individuals in a non-life threatening situation, than the payor system.
Click to expand...

The Euro nations are good with this. Canada, no. Yet ask a Canadian what's the most important Canadian right, and most will tell you our healthcare.

And why do people assume the US will do it better? Have you ever been here in the US, to fill out paperowrk for any government related benefit? Its crazy the amount of paper work one has to go through. I refuse to go to the VA hospital system for just that reason.
Click to expand...

Me, I have a healthcard. I flash it when I go see a doc, and that's the last I have to deal with anything. Really. And you don't have to fill out any paperwork through your insurance? :confused:


My private hospital delivers superior care, with quicker efficiency than the government one I would have access to. During active duty military service, I basically had what amounts to UHC. I didn't have to have any insurance, but it took me 4 months before i could get in to see about getting a contact prescription. The next time I needed one, I just went to an eye doctor and paid out of pocket and had my contacts that day. I've been on both sides of the issue, and the private industry far outpaces the government one here in America.
Click to expand...

UHC doesn't have to be that way. Seems to me your military does a poor job of it.

I know Canadians go down to the Rochester Clinic in Minnesota, and pay out of pocket, for the expediency their government cannot provide. If we adopt a UHC system, where are you guys going to go for expedient care on non-life threatening issues? Cause we ain't going to have it anymore.
Click to expand...

Yes, that does happen. Just like we get Yanks up here to buy meds and use our Healthcare. Interesting, eh?
 
Last edited:
tlmorg02 said:
Healthcare is not a commodity, it is a necessity.
Click to expand...
Health Care is service - a commodity, like any other service. That you call it 'necessary' doesnt change that, and doent remove it from the same market forces that govern the 'cost' of any other commodity.

People will not quit getting sick because insurance companies go out of business
Click to expand...
No, they wont. What they WILL do is pay for their health care our of their pocket if they can; if they cannot, they won't get any health care,

Like any other service, if the price is too high, people wont buy it. This will force the price down to the point where there are enogh customers to keep the industry afloat.

-Anything- that puts the burden of payment on someone other than the end-user only acts to drive prices higher.
 
Goobieman said:
Health Care is service - a commodity, like any other service. That you call it 'necessary' doesnt change that, and doent remove it from the same market forces that govern the 'cost' of any other commodity.


No, they wont. What they WILL do is pay for their health care our of their pocket if they can; if they cannot, they won't get any health care,

Like any other service, if the price is too high, people wont buy it. This will force the price down to the point where there are enogh customers to keep the industry afloat.

-Anything- that puts the burden of payment on someone other than the end-user only acts to drive prices higher.
Click to expand...


I disagree, there are many people now that have no insurance nor can afford to pay out-of-pocket, and yet go to the hospitals everyday. That is a big factor in driving healthcare costs up. And those without insurance in your scenario as well will not go to seek preventative medicine, but they will still go for medical emergencies and when the develop severe conditions. Anyone is going to take their child to the doctor when the break an arm, whether they have insurance or not will not be a concern. Thus, costs will still be high and government will take over completely.
 
If hospitals treat anyone who needs to be treated, then who pays for it? My guess... American taxpayers.
Click to expand...
The hospital. And then the cost gets subrogated back to the insurance companies, by charging more for procedures to the insurance companies than they would an individual that could pay out of pocket, and that ultimatley leads to an increase in premium for insurance holders, so eventually the cost works its way back to the purchaser of insurance.


Me, I have a healthcard. I flash it when I go see a doc, and that's the last I have to deal with anything. Really. And you don't have to fill out any paperwork through your insurance? :confused:
Click to expand...

No, I do not fill out any paperwork through my insurance. It has to be filled out to receive it initially, but thats it. If I go to the hospital, I give somebody my insurance card, they take down the relevant information, and then at some point, I receive a bill from the hospital for my responsibility towards the cost(because my deductible or co-pay maximum has not been met) and I will receive a statement from my insurance company showing how much they paid for my treatment and where I stand in regards to my deductible being met, co-pay requirements, and how much further I have until I reach my max out of pocket limit. Anything beyond the out of pocket limit, is picked up 100% by the insurance company up to the policy limit of coverage.

UHC doesn't have to be that way. Seems to me your military does a poor job of it.
Click to expand...

Thats because its how our government works.

Yes, that does happen. Just like we get Yanks up here to buy meds and use our Healthcare. Interesting, eh?
Click to expand...

I have issue with American Pharmaceuticals in a major way. Just as I don't blame canadians coming down here for good healthcare, I don't blame Americans for getting meds from Canada.
 
tlmorg02 said:
I disagree, there are many people now that have no insurance nor can afford to pay out-of-pocket, and yet go to the hospitals everyday. That is a big factor in driving healthcare costs up.
Click to expand...
That's because someone else pays for the services given to these people.
If people are required to pay for their own health care, the costs will go down.

If you advocate a system where someone other than the end-user pays for his own health care, you -necessarily- advocate a system that will drive health care costs up.
 
Middleground said:
Does it have to be in the Constitution in order for it to be a right? :confused:
Click to expand...
Awesome question. The answer is no, because the Constitution does not bestow any rights. Surprise, the Bill of Rights is really a misnomer, because it merely declares limits on Congress with regard to certain inalienable, existing rights.

If hospitals treat anyone who needs to be treated, then who pays for it? My guess... American taxpayers.
Click to expand...

You should have said American public. Because it is recouped through increased healthcare prices, not taxes.


So again I ask... is healthcare a right for every American? It's either a yes or a no. If it's a no, they you're current system is the way to go. Insurance companies can decided what is allowed based-on a person's coverage.

And for those that do not have any insurance, the taxpayer foots the bill, which is kinda rediculous when you think about it.
Click to expand...

The true answer is no. It may sounds heartless, but the the Constitution doesn't have a heart. That's up to the public at large.

Right. But it's still taxpayers that pay, no? And--bottom line-- many who do not have insurance, do fall through the cracks. You and I both know that. They delay seeing a doctor because they do not want to go through the ordeal of paperwork, and being grilled for money cuz I do know that's what happens.
Click to expand...
Yes, and as tragic as that sounds, it's not up to the Federal govt to force the public to pay for it.

The Euro nations are good with this. Canada, no. Yet ask a Canadian what's the most important Canadian right, and most will tell you our healthcare.
Click to expand...

And that is their right because they are another nation with another constitution.


Me, I have a healthcard. I flash it when I go see a doc, and that's the last I have to deal with anything. Really. And you don't have to fill out any paperwork through your insurance? :confused:
Click to expand...
Ditto above


UHC doesn't have to be that way. Seems to me your military does a poor job of it.



Yes, that does happen. Just like we get Yanks up here to buy meds and use our Healthcare. Interesting, eh?
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with finding better deals, that's ingenuity.
 
Middleground said:
Does it have to be in the Constitution in order for it to be a right?
Click to expand...
No. See Amendment IX.
However, something being a right in no way entitles you to have someone else pay for your exercise of said right.
 
BmanMcfly said:
I'm not sure... I was thinking like the health insurance aspect stays more or less the same, but where those that can't afford wouldn't be left on the street to die either...

If that's like UHC in europe then it's probably a bad idea :p (not because european health care sucks, I'm saying just cause everywhere is a pretty sh&%^y system, and so it would take something new and outside the box to fix it)
Click to expand...

Is it so bad? We have a hybrid system in most countries. You have UHC with hospitals and you can if you wish and afford it have private insurance too. All this put together is cheaper and more effective than the US system, almost every single statistic shows this.

The problem with this debate is simple. You have the radical right wingers who hate anything that is remotely connected to anything government unless it is something to do with guns. Because of this the only UHC systems that they want to mention are Canada's and the UK's. Now I dont know much about the Canadian system but I do know that the Uk's has been broken since Maggie Thatcher got her right wing hands on it, but sadly the UK system is STILL cheaper and more effective than the US. But that does not mean that UHC is a failure world wide.... quite on the contrary. Funny how they mention those 2 systems out of 20+ in the western world... Why not mention the Danish or the French? Or the German or Spanish? They are not perfect either, but they still cover all (including visiting Americans) and are cheaper by far than the US system and provide larger and better care.

At the same time you have an American people that associate UHC with the Soviet Union and communism basicly. And this is just a wrong assumption. It might have been correct in the 1950s but in today's world.. hardly.

UHC systems around the world have one thing in common. Everyone is covered period. If you have cancer, you get treatment. If you have a busted knee then you get treatment. If you have a heart problem then you get treatment. Sure it might take a bit of time, but you do get treatment and it will not cost you your house. At worst you will be required to pay some part of the treatment and if you cant, then you still will get the treatment.

Now you can make UHC in many different ways.

You can go the Swiss way (thanks to their big Pharma companies..) and go 100% private, but mandatory. The Swiss have UHC, but that is via private insurance coverage that is mandatory. It is also the second most expensive system on the planet after the US. But the point is that everyone is covered. And the Swiss have been thinking of dumping their private system because of the costs, but have been blocked by the big pharma companies lobbying.

Or you can go via a hybrid system where everyone is covered. In most countries that UHC today, you have freedom of choice of doctors (within reason of course), freedom of choice if you want to add to your healthcare coverage via private means. Also you do not want to wait (if there are waiting lists), you can just pay or have your private insurance company pay for treatment at a private hospital. Or you can just decline treatment. The choice is yours.

Or you can go the Cuban way.. 100% government controlled. The kicker here.. even the Cuban system is cheaper and better in many areas..

Personally I like the hybrid way, as it gives far more choice and secures the health of the nation... which is what we are talking about. Cant have people walking around spreading disease because they cant afford simple treatments can we now...

Like it or not, the US healthcare system is broken. Your insurance costs are insane, your standard of care for what you pay is pathetic and with all that money spent by the US on healthcare, 40+ million American's are officially without healthcare coverage. Sure they can go to the emergency room, but that is just adding to the overall cost and is far far more expensive for society as a whole, and putting a strain on emergency rooms (which dont help since there are fewer and fewer emergency rooms).
 
Goobieman said:
That's because someone else pays for the services given to these people.
If people are required to pay for their own health care, the costs will go down.

If you advocate a system where someone other than the end-user pays for his own health care, you -necessarily- advocate a system that will drive health care costs up.
Click to expand...

But ethically doctors cannot refuse emergent healthcare. I can assure you that if you are in a car accident and are severly injured, your last thought would be whether you could afford the treatment.

If it were as simple as a person deciding whether or not to get plastic surgery, then I would agree with you completely. But many times in healthcare a person is not in a position to determine whether they can afford treatment. They are injured or dying of some disorder or disease and need medical attention. To place a price on human life is to remove the humanity from it all in the name of profit. Is this what you envision? Allowing people to die because they cannot afford to go to the hospital in order to drive costs down with market forces? Is this the way to do it in your opinion?
 
Middleground said:
Ahem, 'scuse me, but that IS NOT FACT.

See, I'm one of those that view healthcare as a right.
Click to expand...

What you believe and what reality are... often are completely different things.


Middleground said:
Your analogy fails miserably because like you, I don't agree that a car and house are a right. If someone is in dire need of a doctor, I could not morally allow that NOT to happen. If you have no problem letting them die, then you'll have to live with that decision. As for me, I cannot. It's that simple.

If someone is in dire need of a car, I will tell them to take the bus.

If someone is in dire need of a house, I will tell them to go to a shelter or rent.

See the difference?
Click to expand...
As usual, you're emotional inability to rationally discuss anything is on full display for all to see. Did I say anything about letting people die in the streets? NO.

I said, and it's a fact, you do not have a RIGHT (because you have no clue what a right is, you just feel about issues and then rant incoherently about issues not even being discussed) to health care.

You will not be refused emergency care if you are in an accident, or become ill. But this is not because it's a RIGHT. Please try to reign in your emotionalism MG.
 
tlmorg02 said:
But ethically doctors cannot refuse emergent healthcare.
Click to expand...
If they cannot refuse treatment, then they are required to treat some people for free. If they treat someone without knowing if they can pay, they know they might not get paid for their services.

None of this changes anything I said.
 
Goobieman said:
If they cannot refuse treatment, then they are required to treat some people for free. If they treat someone without knowing if they can pay, they know they might not get paid for their services.

None of this changes anything I said.
Click to expand...


Of course it changes what you said. You are saying that doctors and hospitals treat "at their own risk," essentially. That is extremely non-capitalistic. That would be like requiring mechanics to repair cars that are broke down on the side of the road, and in doing so expect them to chance not being paid.
 
MrVicchio said:
What you believe and what reality are... often are completely different things.



As usual, you're emotional inability to rationally discuss anything is on full display for all to see. Did I say anything about letting people die in the streets? NO.

I said, and it's a fact, you do not have a RIGHT (because you have no clue what a right is, you just feel about issues and then rant incoherently about issues not even being discussed) to health care.

You will not be refused emergency care if you are in an accident, or become ill. But this is not because it's a RIGHT. Please try to reign in your emotionalism MG.
Click to expand...


Please do not feed the trolls.
 
PeteEU said:
The problem with this debate is simple. You have the radical right wingers who hate anything that is remotely connected to anything government unless it is something to do with guns.
Click to expand...
Funny... I thought the oppositioin from the right had to do with forcing some people to provide the means for other people to exercise their rights.

But hey -- go ahead and beat up that straw man.
 
Middleground said:
Please do not feed the trolls.
Click to expand...

When you have nothing left, you call me names and refuse to counter the debate.

What is a right MG? Let's hear your definition.

(I'm betting you cannot do it without injecting your feelings into it.)
 
tlmorg02 said:
Of course it changes what you said. You are saying that doctors and hospitals treat "at their own risk," essentially. That is extremely non-capitalistic.
Click to expand...
Its VERY capitalistic and VERY free-market.

If you choose to go into business as a doctor or as a hospital, you know that some of your services may be free. If you aren't willing to run that risk, then you don't go into that business.

There's nothing less 'capitalist' -- that is, less free-market -- than a 3rd party payee.
 
Goobieman said:
Its VERY capitalistic and VERY free-market.

If you choose to go into business as a doctor or as a hospital, you know that some of your services may be free. If you aren't willing to run that risk, then you don't go into that business.

There's nothing less 'capitalist' -- that is, less free-market -- than a 3rd party payee.
Click to expand...

So, then lets say we have it your way. So, doctors take the risk and people do not get medical attention that they cannot afford. How long before the number of doctors diminish due to lower wages versus debt taken in becoming a doctor and there is less access to healthcare.

My main gripe with your argument is that in order for it to work, people must die as we wait for the market to adjust. That is profit over people and I can never see money over human life. I believe in capitalism, but it is a philosophy, not a law of the world as is death. No price should ever be placed on the lives of people in a civilized society so that people can profit on it.
 
WI Crippler said:
Well the market works in that favor as well. If the claims issue is as bad as you say it could be(and it does happen), then the employer can change companies at any time, including changing back to the other provider that they may have liked better. There is nothing stopping an employer from changing insurance companies, whenever they want to. For any business, its up to them to decide whats most important, and they need to have the flexibility to change whenever they need to, when circumstances arise that affect their ability to do business.

But there is one thing I would like to see wiped out. The idea behind preferred providers. I say if you have an insurance plan, from a reputable provider(insurance companies are rated by AM Best), then there should be no change in your deductible or co-pay requirements. It shouldn't matter which doctor or hospital you go to, and the regional preferences of health insurance companies just doesn't make sense to me. Why should one pay for health coverage, and then be penalized for using it somewhere other than one certain hospital system?
Click to expand...
Someone other that me was claiming that it is a big problem. I was acknowledging that it does happen especially with some companies and, IMO, if the consumer was paying for their own insurance those companies would be quickly weeded out.

With the employer providing the insurance, the healthcare consumer loses control of what they need for coverage and any input into picking companies that provide the service level they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom