• 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!

House bill would make health care a right

Birdzeye said:
That's because many employer-provided insurance plans cover all employees without regard to health status; the fees are structured that way, and all the employees share the higher risk of those less healthy.
Click to expand...
That's correct, in fact, depending on how much the employer contribution is, many healthy employees are better off shopping individual, but if an employer is contributing more than 75%, most employees can't beat the price out of that market, again though, some group plans are pretty horrid, especially many HMOs.

The only option for individuals who are either self employed or who work for an employer who does not provide health insurance is to seek a private or individual policy. Under those circumstances they are more likely to be asked health questions, and if they have health problems (more likely as one gets older), they are likely either to be rejected outright or to be offered a policy at rates that are greater than what they have left over after paying for food, rent and utilities.
Click to expand...
This is true, high risk plans can be a good option, one thing that I have not seen personally, but has been confirmed by many colleagues is that the worst thing many potential clients do is lie when they are not a preferred risk, they would otherwise qualify for a decent rate(considering their condition) but will be refused coverage because what they stated doesn't match up to what is found on the M.I.B. or subsequent physicals, the application process these days is more or less a character assessment.

One of my cousins was rejected for being about 50 lbs overweight with no other health problems.
Click to expand...
She didn't try to get a medical waiver? Most underwriters allow for being overweight but otherwise healthy if a physician signs an affidavit.
It's people like her, and other relatives like the one I mentioned who had a stroke, who are falling through the health insurance cracks, and private insurance seems to have had little to no interest in filling that gap.
Click to expand...
That is false, there are plenty of plans out there if someone is willing to look, I have seen plans allow for mild strokes, stents, cardiovascular problems, etc. They aren't going to be as low of a premium or deductible as their standard competition, but the value comes about if medical treatment is necessary.
Click to expand...
 
Erod said:
The good news is that ALL of the major polls are showing that 60 percent of the country is against this, so Democrats in Congress are bailing on it like the plague. I'm becoming more optimistic that this thing will fail.

Now if we can kill Obama's next $1 trillion in stimulus, perhaps there's light in the tunnel somewhere way down the road.
Click to expand...

WillRockwell said:
That's funny, the Gallup poll released this week shows 56% favoring health care reform and 33% opposed. Are you one of those who thinks you can get people to believe any nonsense just by typing it?
Poll: Americans want health care bill, but not the cost - USATODAY.com
Click to expand...

WillRockwell said:
Erod flatly stated that 60% of Americans oppose health care reform and that Democrats were "bailing from it like the plague". He offered no link or proof of this claim. Can you?
Click to expand...

I don't see where Erod flatly stated that 60% of Americans oppose health care reform.

I see where he stated 60% of Americans oppose this.

By this I was assuming that he was speaking of "House bill would make health care a right".


I might be wrong, but I doubt it.
 
TheNextEra said:
And if that doesn't help them, are you ok with children dying?

I'm ok right now, so each and every child that dies because government help is not there is on you. You ok with that? Can you and others live with yourselves knowing a child is dying because you took away welfare?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
Because the alternative is slavery.
 
TheNextEra said:
Ahh but the conservative mentality is those that are qualified get jobs. For those not qualified, then they fall out of the system. I'm glad you are ok with children dying to serve your political agenda.
Click to expand...
And I'm glad you are OK with enslaving people to serve yours.
 
formerroadie said:
And would Jefferson had said the same thing while seeing children dying from hunger or lack of health care in the richest country in the world?
Click to expand...
Thomas Jefferson had been to many parts of the world, especially the rich parts. In those parts, there were untold numbers of children dying from hunger and/or lack of health care.

And so, yes, he would have said the same thing.
 
LaMidRighter said:
She didn't try to get a medical waiver? Most underwriters allow for being overweight but otherwise healthy if a physician signs an affidavit. That is false, there are plenty of plans out there if someone is willing to look, I have seen plans allow for mild strokes, stents, cardiovascular problems, etc. They aren't going to be as low of a premium or deductible as their standard competition, but the value comes about if medical treatment is necessary.
Click to expand...


I don't know if she tried to get a waiver.

I have heard of rates quoted for people with health problems and they aren't just slightly higher; they are astronomical. When it comes down to deciding whether to buy insurance or have a roof over one's head and food on the table, what do you think the priority will be? Some people barely live paycheck to paycheck as it is and find health insurance (especially if they have to pay higher rates because of health problems) in the luxury category. That is the problem for many uninsured.
Click to expand...
 
Caine said:
Funny, I don't recall my employer based health plan asking me any questions about pre-existing conditions.

They also covered my wife's pre-existing pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Cops, teachers, and other public servants generally have excellent coverage. Where I work, you have to either have had continuous healthcare coverage prior to their insurance or pay without getting benefits for 6 months if you had sought treatment for a preexisting condition for the past year. This is the usual policy of PacifiCare, IIRC. I had a preexisting condition but I hadn’t seen the doctor in over a year. People who are self-employed or employed for a small company often cannot get coverage.

LaMidRighter said:
The question is: Was he uninsurable or did he not try hard enough? I've found companies that are the same price as a typical family major med. plan with the same benefits of that family plan. is it expensive for an individual? Yes, but less expensive than bankruptcy and a breath of fresh air to people who stuck in there and talked to me.
Click to expand...

Actually yes, some people literally will be turned away by every company, or at best, charged tens of thousands per year to be insured (the average for a family of 4 is ~$16k). No, not everybody can afford that.

American said:
Good, then give away your ****ing retirement pay to the children!
Click to expand...

Not enough people will do it.
phattonez said:
This is what you call an ad hominem attack. It is a logical fallacy.

If you can't figure out what Jefferson believes, you must have some kind of learning disability (or you only read at a 3rd grade level). I mean that in all seriousness.
Click to expand...

Speaking of fallacies, why is everybody appealing to the authority of Jefferson instead of arguing logically?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Perfectly logically, if I have to be enslaved to provide someone else a "right", then they can eat **** about their non-existent "right".
Click to expand...

Again, we rely upon people who are compensated (not slaves) to protect the rights you actually believe in, so this has no bearing upon whether or not positive rights exist.

Under the idea that healthcare is a right, the government would be required to compensate doctors just as doctors are required to try to save somebody.

As you were instructed, the police are an essential function of government.

Medical care is not, never has been and never should be.
Click to expand...

Obviously that is your opinion, but it cannot be logically based upon your first point.


phattonez said:
Because they're only charitable with other people's money.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on if they're rich or not. Isn't Bill Gates a democrat? :)


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You can start with these:

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981)

California Government Code, § 845.

Souza v. City of Antioch, 62 California Reporter, 2d 909, 916 (Cal. App. 1997).

Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 258 § 10(h).


Ford v. Town of Grafion, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
Click to expand...

That's too bad. I never said the law was logical. :)

No thanks. While geography did play a role, limited government and capitalism allowed us to grow as we did.
Click to expand...

If you read the book, you would see that our government really does not function very well not necessarily because it is large or limited, but because it is poorly designed.

On capitalism, it’s not really what we have, but capitalism is useful for a country that values wealth like ours does. However, it must be regulated and some sectors do not function well under a pure profit motive. This is especially true of health insurance.

"thier argument" is that of natural law.... This is still current.
Click to expand...

Feel free to present it.




:mrgreen:


As a Gulf war Vet, I choose to have additional private health insurance to avoid the VA like the plague....
Click to expand...

Right now it might be a good idea, as Congress and the Bush Administration failed to approve extra funding that the VHA obviously needed due to the Iraq and Afghan wars. But I assume you read the link and it proved my point.


I tried googling the rates, and it was too much a pita, perhaps you can have better luck with this.
Click to expand...

America is the worst on medical errors and costs in general:

U.S. Health Care Most Expensive & Most Error Prone

Closer to liberal imo, tha libertarian as well.
Click to expand...

Um, all of the social positions I mentioned were libertarian and not all were liberal. People who care more about fiscal issues, such as this one, generally call me a liberal though, as I’m fiscally liberal.
 
Last edited:
Birdzeye said:
I have heard of rates quoted for people with health problems and they aren't just slightly higher; they are astronomical. When it comes down to deciding whether to buy insurance or have a roof over one's head and food on the table, what do you think the priority will be? Some people barely live paycheck to paycheck as it is and find health insurance (especially if they have to pay higher rates because of health problems) in the luxury category. That is the problem for many uninsured.
Click to expand...
To be fair, some high-risk companies do have appreciably higher costs, I have seen some of those, I don't personally deal with those companies because it isn't fair to my client base, but there were a few companies offering policies in the 3-5h$ range, yes, that is a little pricey, but so is a hospital stay, It's all about risk and trade-off.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Actually yes, some people literally will be turned away by every company, or at best, charged tens of thousands per year to be insured (the average for a family of 4 is ~$16k). No, not everybody can afford that.
Click to expand...
Don't try to pull that with me, I'm an agent. If you are literally turned away from every company you have much bigger problems than getting insured, it's time to have the coroner on stand by.





Speaking of fallacies, why is everybody appealing to the authority of Jefferson instead of arguing logically?
Click to expand...
Because he wrote the constitution, anything that defies the founding fathers vision of the constitution is prohibited, and that is logical, trying to wriggle out of that fact is not.



Under the idea that healthcare is a right, the government would be required to compensate doctors just as doctors are required to try to save somebody.
Click to expand...
Hasn't worked under Medicare, the VA, or Medicaid, what makes you think an increased consumer base would fix this, in fact, try getting on a priority list with your favorite physician or hospital under Medicare A, Medicare A/B, or Medicaid and you will normally be out by quota.
Click to expand...
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Under the idea that healthcare is a right, the government would be required to compensate doctors just as doctors are required to try to save somebody.
Click to expand...
No.... that would be the case if health care were a government-provided privilege.

Health care is already a right.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Cops, teachers, and other public servants generally have excellent coverage. Where I work, you have to either have had continuous healthcare coverage prior to their insurance or pay without getting benefits for 6 months if you had sought treatment for a preexisting condition for the past year. This is the usual policy of PacifiCare, IIRC. I had a preexisting condition but I hadn’t seen the doctor in over a year. People who are self-employed or employed for a small company often cannot get coverage.



Actually yes, some people literally will be turned away by every company, or at best, charged tens of thousands per year to be insured (the average for a family of 4 is ~$16k). No, not everybody can afford that.



Not enough people will do it.


Speaking of fallacies, why is everybody appealing to the authority of Jefferson instead of arguing logically?



Again, we rely upon people who are compensated (not slaves) to protect the rights you actually believe in, so this has no bearing upon whether or not positive rights exist.

Under the idea that healthcare is a right, the government would be required to compensate doctors just as doctors are required to try to save somebody.



Obviously that is your opinion, but it cannot be logically based upon your first point.




I guess that depends on if they're rich or not. Isn't Bill Gates a democrat? :)




That's too bad. I never said the law was logical. :)



If you read the book, you would see that our government really does not function very well not necessarily because it is large or limited, but because it is poorly designed.

On capitalism, it’s not really what we have, but capitalism is useful for a country that values wealth like ours does. However, it must be regulated and some sectors do not function well under a pure profit motive. This is especially true of health insurance.



Feel free to present it.






Right now it might be a good idea, as Congress and the Bush Administration failed to approve extra funding that the VHA obviously needed due to the Iraq and Afghan wars. But I assume you read the link and it proved my point.




America is the worst on medical errors and costs in general:

U.S. Health Care Most Expensive & Most Error Prone



Um, all of the social positions I mentioned were libertarian and not all were liberal. People who care more about fiscal issues, such as this one, generally call me a liberal though, as I’m fiscally liberal.
Click to expand...
Are you going to argue that the likes of Jefferson and Madison were illogical?
 
Goobieman said:
No.... that would be the case if health care were a government-provided privilege.

Health care is already a right.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? Then please explain this:

You may have to watch part of the video; it's an episode of "60 Minutes." The first story is about how some "charity" patients at a chemo clinic got dropped for financial reasons. They simply could not take for granted that their medical needs would be fulfilled.

60 Minutes Full Episodes Video - 60 Minutes, 04.05.09 - CBS.com
 
Birdzeye said:
Oh, really? Then please explain this:
Click to expand...
The explanation is simple:
The right to health care is exactly the same as the right to property, the right to travel, the right to own a gun, etc -- you have the right to whatever health care you can afford to buy.

That is:
Having the right to X does not equate to the right to have X supplied to you for free.
 
American said:
Are you going to argue that the likes of Jefferson and Madison were illogical?
Click to expand...

Previously, I argued that they lived hundreds of years ago and could not know what we know today. Who knows what they would conclude if they had all of our history to look back upon.

But quite frankly it is irrelevant. The purpose of debate is logical argumentation, not what founding father said what.

LaMidRighter said:
Don't try to pull that with me, I'm an agent. If you are literally turned away from every company you have much bigger problems than getting insured, it's time to have the coroner on stand by.
Click to expand...

This would explain your stance on the issue, lol.

Because he wrote the constitution, anything that defies the founding fathers vision of the constitution is prohibited, and that is logical, trying to wriggle out of that fact is not.
Click to expand...

No he wrote the Declaration of Independence. There was no single author of the Constitution.

The following book will explain how the drafting of the Constitution was more based upon compromise with slaveholders and small states than any sort of logical process:

How democratic is the American ... - Google Books

Also, I am no more interested in what the law says than the founding fathers were when they tried to make a new nation. Like them, we should focus on what is right and what works.

Hasn't worked under Medicare, the VA, or Medicaid, what makes you think an increased consumer base would fix this, in fact, try getting on a priority list with your favorite physician or hospital under Medicare A, Medicare A/B, or Medicaid and you will normally be out by quota.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you did not read my link to the VA, then.

Goobieman said:
The explanation is simple:
The right to health care is exactly the same as the right to property, the right to travel, the right to own a gun, etc -- you have the right to whatever health care you can afford to buy.

That is:
Having the right to X does not equate to the right to have X supplied to you for free.
Click to expand...

Well it shouldn't be free, only accessible. I believe NHI should come out of the general fund, be accompanied with copays, and be supplemented by taxes on things like soda. The reason Congress is doing it as it is is because of Obama's stupid promise not to raise taxes on those below 250k. :)
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
The explanation is simple:
The right to health care is exactly the same as the right to property, the right to travel, the right to own a gun, etc -- you have the right to whatever health care you can afford to buy.

That is:
Having the right to X does not equate to the right to have X supplied to you for free.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone support a system where you only get the best health care if you are wealthy?
 
LiveUninhibited said:
But quite frankly it is irrelevant. The purpose of debate is logical argumentation, not what founding father said what.
Click to expand...
Yes it absolutely is logical since they wrote the founding law, that it is incovenient for your wants towards the law is irrelevent.



This would explain your stance on the issue, lol.
Click to expand...
You're right, I am informed on the matter, in fact I am focusing on life coverage right now and not currently appointed with any health companies. That I want to make money with my knowledge and you would assign the government to take that from me for your desire to see change speaks volumes about you.



No he wrote the Declaration of Independence. There was no single author of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
He had a hand in it, he didn't write it in full.

The following book will explain how the drafting of the Constitution was more based upon compromise with slaveholders and small states than any sort of logical process:

How democratic is the American ... - Google Books
Click to expand...
The following book is an opinion, and not exactly a good one.



Well it shouldn't be free, only accessible. I believe NHI should come out of the general fund, be accompanied with copays, and be supplemented by taxes on things like soda.
Click to expand...
Access is the code word for free, except it's only free for some, those that don't pay taxes, I am personally sick and tired of this paying for other people's lunch ****.
Click to expand...
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Well it shouldn't be free, only accessible.
Click to expand...
It IS accessible. To everyone. Right now.
Just like houses and cars and TVs and guns -- other things you have a right to.

I believe NHI should come out of the general fund, be accompanied with copays, and be supplemented by taxes on things like soda.
Click to expand...
Wait... I thought you said it should not be free..?
 
Last edited:
WillRockwell said:
Why would anyone support a system where you only get the best health care if you are wealthy?
Click to expand...
I see that you're not going to address my post, other than try to misdirect the conversation away from it.

No surprise there, given that you have no way to counter the fact that having the right to X does not equate to the right to have X supplied to you for free.

But, to answer YOUR post:

Simple.
The alternative is slavery.
 
WillRockwell said:
Rasmussen's question asked if people supported a "government run health care company". That is not what is being proposed, and Rasmussen is dishonest.
Click to expand...


Then what is being proposed?

A non governmental health care company? Then why is the government controlling it?

WillRockwell said:
Why would anyone support a system where you only get the best health care if you are wealthy?
Click to expand...

No one is proposing that, it doesn't exist.

You seriously need to visit a doctor or health care professional and see how wrong you are.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Previously, I argued that they lived hundreds of years ago and could not know what we know today. Who knows what they would conclude if they had all of our history to look back upon.

But quite frankly it is irrelevant. The purpose of debate is logical argumentation, not what founding father said what.



This would explain your stance on the issue, lol.



No he wrote the Declaration of Independence. There was no single author of the Constitution.

The following book will explain how the drafting of the Constitution was more based upon compromise with slaveholders and small states than any sort of logical process:

How democratic is the American ... - Google Books

Also, I am no more interested in what the law says than the founding fathers were when they tried to make a new nation. Like them, we should focus on what is right and what works.



I'm assuming you did not read my link to the VA, then.



Well it shouldn't be free, only accessible. I believe NHI should come out of the general fund, be accompanied with copays, and be supplemented by taxes on things like soda. The reason Congress is doing it as it is is because of Obama's stupid promise not to raise taxes on those below 250k. :)
Click to expand...
Then argue logically without unsubstantiated assertions.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
That's too bad. I never said the law was logical. :)
Click to expand...

Actually it makes perfect sense. Otherwise one could sue because a cop failed to respond in time....

On this note, we should be responsible for ourselves.


If you read the book, you would see that our government really does not function very well not necessarily because it is large or limited, but because it is poorly designed.
Click to expand...


Incorrect, I would see the authors opinion on our government and what not.


On capitalism, it’s not really what we have, but capitalism is useful for a country that values wealth like ours does. However, it must be regulated and some sectors do not function well under a pure profit motive. This is especially true of health insurance.
Click to expand...

fine regulate it. Don't take it over.


Feel free to present it.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights]Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

:shrug:



Right now it might be a good idea, as Congress and the Bush Administration failed to approve extra funding that the VHA obviously needed due to the Iraq and Afghan wars. But I assume you read the link and it proved my point.
Click to expand...


REALLY? Are you REALLY going to blame just the last administration for the VA's dismal state? REALLY? :roll:


The VA sucked long before Bush came to office...



America is the worst on medical errors and costs in general:

U.S. Health Care Most Expensive & Most Error Prone
Click to expand...


Propaganda. people don't fly here for surgery cause we suck.


Um, all of the social positions I mentioned were libertarian and not all were liberal. People who care more about fiscal issues, such as this one, generally call me a liberal though, as I’m fiscally liberal.
Click to expand...


Meh it's of no real matter. Some of those things you listed were really not "libertarian" or ambiguous to libertarianism......
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Then what is being proposed?

A non governmental health care company? Then why is the government controlling it?

.
Click to expand...

By using the term "company" in their polling question, Rasmussen is incorporating a term that has been proven to test negative. That is dishonest, and proves Rasmussen is incapable of conducting unbiased polling research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom