• 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!

White House appears ready to drop 'public option'

............................................why not repeal SSI, Medicaid, Public Schools, Park Services, Infrastructure, food stamps, and everything else the govt provides then.

LOL!

get real

you're debating on a cloud

health care's dead

that means, so is the obama presidency

sorry
 
............................................why not repeal SSI, Medicaid, Public Schools, Park Services, Infrastructure, food stamps, and everything else the govt provides then.

Dunno. Why not?

Besides, you're arguing from the same position that so many others do, and it's a weak one -- you equate the concept of limited government with no government.

That does not follow.
 
I think I will just lurk and wait for what comes out of the Senate.
 
How do people against some or all of the proposed health care reform bill reconcile the difference between the ambulance and the doctor? Emergency services, fire, police, paramedics, etc. are socialized in our country.

Why do we draw the line at the hospital or Dr.'s doorstep? Why are you on your own dime when the ambulance drops you at the emergency room?

We actually had to pass laws to make it illegal for emergency rooms to refuse care to those with an immediate need. There was a time (and maybe this still goes on) where ambulance drivers asked what kind of insurance you have. How did it come to that? No founding father or free-market capitalist would ever support that kind of morally reprehensible behavior, but some how it went on.

I don't believe that all health care insurance providers are greedy, soulless entities. Many of the horror stories happen with low-cost or budget providers. The bigger companies that provide insurance for companies and their employees have too much to loose by not operating in an ethical manner. If too many employees complain to their employer, the company will start shopping around.

Something to consider: Spending vs. outcome. How is that the areas that spend the most on health insurance don't have better health outcomes than those areas that spend less?
 
How do people against some or all of the proposed health care reform bill reconcile the difference between the ambulance and the doctor? Emergency services, fire, police, paramedics, etc. are socialized in our country.

Why do we draw the line at the hospital or Dr.'s doorstep? Why are you on your own dime when the ambulance drops you at the emergency room?

We actually had to pass laws to make it illegal for emergency rooms to refuse care to those with an immediate need. There was a time (and maybe this still goes on) where ambulance drivers asked what kind of insurance you have. How did it come to that? No founding father or free-market capitalist would ever support that kind of morally reprehensible behavior, but some how it went on.

I don't believe that all health care insurance providers are greedy, soulless entities. Many of the horror stories happen with low-cost or budget providers. The bigger companies that provide insurance for companies and their employees have too much to loose by not operating in an ethical manner. If too many employees complain to their employer, the company will start shopping around.

Something to consider: Spending vs. outcome. How is that the areas that spend the most on health insurance don't have better health outcomes than those areas that spend less?

Ambulances and paramedics are not socialized where I am. They are private businesses who provide excellent service because they are competing with other ambulance companies.

As far as fire fighters, I have no problem contracting them out. Police should stay as government controlled because they are enforcing government laws. It would probably be more difficult to get citizens to obey private companies that are enforcing government laws.
 
How do people against some or all of the proposed health care reform bill reconcile the difference between the ambulance and the doctor? Emergency services, fire, police, paramedics, etc. are socialized in our country.
There is a fundamental difference between the government protecting your rights - i.e. military, police and fire department - and providing you the means to exercise those rights.

We actually had to pass laws to make it illegal for emergency rooms to refuse care to those with an immediate need.
Yes. Inanely silly, forcing people to provide goods and services for free.

There was a time (and maybe this still goes on) where ambulance drivers asked what kind of insurance you have. How did it come to that?
The novel idea that you should get paid for the work that you do?
When did that idea die?

No founding father or free-market capitalist would ever support that kind of morally reprehensible behavior, but some how it went on.
On the contrary -- ALL of them would expect that people receive compenation for the goods and services they provide.
When did that idea die?
 
Last edited:
Fine Coronado. ONE person in America cannot afford health insurance. So we let him or her die. That is ok. They should have been better at capitalism.

That one person can walk into any hospital in the United States and get the care they need. No one is turned away; that's the truth Obama and his lying liberals want to acknowledge.

Obama doesn't give a crap about the one person you describe either. He just wants to control that person's healthcare so he can control his voting pattern.
 
Anyone who is under the impression this is at ALL about healtchcare just doesn't get it..

This is 100%, non-negotiable growth of government.. does ANYONE here think this is about providing healthcare??... NOPE it is about one of the biggest Progressive Power grabs...

Nothing Progressives do is about the People.. it is all about power, from Bush's Patriot Act to BO's healthcare. I you think for a single minute the progressives care the tiniest amount about your health you are dangerously naive!
 
Anyone who is under the impression this is at ALL about healtchcare just doesn't get it..

This is 100%, non-negotiable growth of government.. does ANYONE here think this is about providing healthcare??... NOPE it is about one of the biggest Progressive Power grabs...
Of course it is.
Like the New Deal and the Great Society, its about empowering the Democratic party, all on the backs of the American taxpayer -- preferably the rich, but the middle class will do as well.
 
every word that comes out of a liberal's mouth is an excuse for increased gov't activity

raison d'etre---reason for existence
 
15. Obamacare still FINES individuals, still CUTS MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, still covers ILLEGALS, still changes public funding of ABORTION, still bends the COST CURVE the wrong way, still taxes BENEFITS (the McCain plan), still looks to END OF LIFE COSTS for scary savings...

On the "illegals", this problem, If it is a problem, can be solved by fining the wealthy farmers who employ them.
They come to our nation in search of work - and there seems to be plenty here.
Wall are senseless.
On Health Care.
Greed is the problem.
Others may know how to solve this, I do not.
I am, however, thinking of higher taxes, causing the wealthy to cry, no sympathy here.
On "end of life medical costs", should a man , 75 years of age, be given a new heart ?
Contraversial and I say NO!
But, this I kn, ow, a man must have a living will, and he, not the doctors, must determine when he dies.
 
Yes. Inanely silly, forcing people to provide goods and services for free.

Okay, Goobieman, if you want to defend that position, let's hear it.

In the context of my post, did you understand what we're talking about? People with a critical medical need being turned away from emergency rooms or dying on the way to the public 'free' hospital. That practice has been outlawed, to my knowledge.

But tell us, why do think it is right for Doctors/Hospitals to refuse to care and stabilize a critical patient?
 
That one person can walk into any hospital in the United States and get the care they need. No one is turned away; that's the truth Obama and his lying liberals want to acknowledge.

Obama doesn't give a crap about the one person you describe either. He just wants to control that person's health care so he can control his voting pattern.

Then, all the stories I have heard about people being denied health care at hospitals are just that....stories... I don't know??
I do know that its man's weakness to lie.
And I do know that health care at these hospitals is frightfully expensive.
Why is this ?
$1,000 per month is the latest quote I have heard concerning the cost of health care insurance..
Is this reasonable ?
If so, then all this "debate" is "much ado about nothing".
My mind is not made up concerning a solution...But when I think that Canada, Japan, and the Euro countries have government health care and we do not...
Makes we wonder...why ?
 
Okay, Goobieman, if you want to defend that position, let's hear it.

In the context of my post, did you understand what we're talking about? People with a critical medical need being turned away from emergency rooms or dying on the way to the public 'free' hospital. That practice has been outlawed, to my knowledge.
Yes. And I said that was inane.

But tell us, why do think it is right for Doctors/Hospitals to refuse to care and stabilize a critical patient?
That should br pretty clear from the rest of my post -- everyone has a right to be paid for goods and/or services he or she provides.
 
Thank goodness! I was hoping all this talk of socialism, beauracracy, death panels, and blessed insurance companies was going to eventually lead to folks forgetting that there are still 44,000,000 people without insurance who need an option. It's a shame they are only 44m voters. Too bad.

47million.jpg
 
Ambulances and paramedics are not socialized where I am. They are private businesses who provide excellent service because they are competing with other ambulance companies.

As far as fire fighters, I have no problem contracting them out. Police should stay as government controlled because they are enforcing government laws. It would probably be more difficult to get citizens to obey private companies that are enforcing government laws.

Alex, if you're in need of critical care--accident, heart attack, stoke etc., then you have to pay to be taken to a hospital. The city or county doesn't reimburse private emergency transport companies depending on the type of transport and the patients' circumstances?

So, paramedics arrive at the scene, use the jaws of life to get you out of the car, then you are just left on the side of the road?

My mother has been transported to the hospital numerous times in the last two years -- the payment for services is sorted out after she is stabilized. Patients without insurance are moved to public facilities when they are able to travel. In L.A. the public hospitals aren't that much further than the private ones--I guess it depends on the patients condition.
 
Sometimes you just have to draw them a picture before they get it.

You would think "highly" educated Liberals would do some investigation before they made absurd claims.
 
Yes. And I said that was inane.


That should br pretty clear from the rest of my post -- everyone has a right to be paid for goods and/or services he or she provides.

Fair enough. But what in my post made you think I'm for people working for free or doctors not getting paid?

Emergency room doctors are paid a salary by the hospital. A private hospital can bill the state medicaid program or medical to be reimbursed for the cost of treating critical patients unable to pay.
 
Fair enough. But what in my post made you think I'm for people working for free or doctors not getting paid?
That's what happens when you force people to provide health care to others w/o them having to pay for it.

Unless, of course, someone else is forced to pay for it, either other patients from the same facility, or the people of a state trhough taxes.

That's worse.
 
15. Obamacare still FINES individuals, still CUTS MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, still covers ILLEGALS, still changes public funding of ABORTION, still bends the COST CURVE the wrong way, still taxes BENEFITS (the McCain plan), still looks to END OF LIFE COSTS for scary savings...

On the "illegals", this problem, If it is a problem, can be solved by fining the wealthy farmers who employ them.
They come to our nation in search of work - and there seems to be plenty here.
Wall are senseless.
On Health Care.
Greed is the problem.
Others may know how to solve this, I do not.
I am, however, thinking of higher taxes, causing the wealthy to cry, no sympathy here.
On "end of life medical costs", should a man , 75 years of age, be given a new heart ?
Contraversial and I say NO!
But, this I kn, ow, a man must have a living will, and he, not the doctors, must determine when he dies.

good for you, and thanks

but if you tried to run on that platform, i don't think you'd get 10%

gotta keep it real, friend

politics is hard

clearly too difficult for the doof in the white house

but, hey, at least he's a "reasonably dedicated student"

LOL!
 
Then, all the stories I have heard about people being denied health care at hospitals are just that....stories... I don't know??
I do know that its man's weakness to lie.
And I do know that health care at these hospitals is frightfully expensive.
Why is this ?
$1,000 per month is the latest quote I have heard concerning the cost of health care insurance..
Is this reasonable ?
If so, then all this "debate" is "much ado about nothing".
My mind is not made up concerning a solution...But when I think that Canada, Japan, and the Euro countries have government health care and we do not...
Makes we wonder...why ?

I'll tell you why.... We subsidize it, we, the USA subsidize Canada's, England's, Japan's, and all of Europe's health care. How you ask?

Which one of those countries can defend it's self, or has been able to defend it's self in the last 50 years? Who defends them? How much do they save to spend on their health care by letting someone else defend them? Would they still be able to have Socialized health care if they had to have a standing army to defend themselves? Would they still be free if we didn’t spend trillions on defending them?… or would they all be speaking Russian or Chinese now.
 
That's what happens when you force people to provide health care to others w/o them having to pay for it.

Unless, of course, someone else is forced to pay for it, either other patients from the same facility, or the people of a state trhough taxes.

That's worse.

So, you believe the 'safety nets' we have in this country for families with low incomes and the indigent population should be done away with?

If a person, for whatever reason, finds himself unable to pay for healthcare, then society is not obliged in anyway to help them?

Should firemen and paramedics carry credit card swipers, too. I mean, we should only be rescuing those fortunate enough to pay, right.:roll:

I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from.
 
Which one of those countries can defend it's self, or has been able to defend it's self in the last 50 years?

Every single one of those countries has been able to defend itself except for Japan. In Japan's case, they aren't legally allowed to have a real army, so not really unreasonable. In case you haven't noticed, Canada has no nearby enemies and Britain has a powerful military and nuclear weapons.

How much do they save to spend on their health care by letting someone else defend them? Would they still be able to have Socialized health care if they had to have a standing army to defend themselves? Would they still be free if we didn’t spend trillions on defending them?… or would they all be speaking Russian or Chinese now.

LMAO. The Chinese are going to attack Europe? The Soviets had to intention of attacking Europe, and even if they did our nuclear program was the only thing that mattered to them.
 
So, you believe the 'safety nets' we have in this country for families with low incomes and the indigent population should be done away with?

If the government is funding them then absolutely. If it's a private charity doing it then that's their prerogative and I commend their actions. However, when it is done by government it is completely devoid of any moral value and in fact is counter-productive since they don't focus much on getting people to be self-sufficient.

If a person, for whatever reason, finds himself unable to pay for healthcare, then society is not obliged in anyway to help them?

Obliged, yes. However, who of us has the authority to take from those who refuse to help?

Should firemen and paramedics carry credit card swipers, too. I mean, we should only be rescuing those fortunate enough to pay, right.:roll:

We receive protection proportional to what we have when we pay for firemen and police. It's not the most efficient way of doing things, but we receive what we put in.

I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from.

I can't justify theft in any form.
 
Back
Top Bottom