• 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!

Sen. Rand Paul: Right To Health Care Is Like Believing In "Slavery"

Arcana XV said:
Oh, okay. Fair enough. It's just that we don't have Medicare. Seniors have to purchase their own insurance just like everyone else, so I was wondering what your response to Badmutha was all about.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that all of your seniors are either, 1. dead in the streets or 2. about to be dead, in the streets?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Then I should have the choice to purchase only catastrophic insurance for a very expensive illness.

I do not have that choice, currently and it was none of my doing.
Click to expand...


You mean after you get diagnosed?
 
winston53660 said:
We started out going to the Doctor with no insurance though.

Any hows, I just looked up a plan with a 10k deductible for 152.18 per month.
Click to expand...

You don't need insurance for a check up, that can easily be paid for out of pocket.

Insurance is not for maintenance, it is for unforeseen costs.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm assuming that all of your seniors are either, 1. dead in the streets or 2. about to be dead, in the streets?
Click to expand...

LOL.

No. But just like everyone else they have no choice about whether or not to purchase health insurance. It's mandatory. Only the really poor get government help.
 
Arcana XV said:
LOL.

No. But just like everyone else they have no choice about whether or not to purchase health insurance. It's mandatory. Only the really poor get government help.
Click to expand...

We were proposing that the elderly get vouchers for private insurance, but people thought they'd be dieing in the streets.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You don't need insurance for a check up, that can easily be paid for out of pocket.

Insurance is not for maintenance, it is for unforeseen costs.
Click to expand...


So with a 10k deductible you pay for a lot of Dr visits. I'm not sure what your beef is here any more.

I even found a cheaper plan at 107 per mnth.


 
Right to healthcare = slavery:roll::doh:shock::lamo


:aliens3:
 
winston53660 said:
So with a 10k deductible you pay for a lot of Dr visits. I'm not sure what your beef is here any more.

I even found a cheaper plan at 107 per mnth.


Click to expand...

While HSA's are good, they could be better by eliminating the rest of the maintenance benefits, further lowering the cost of the plan.
Making it nearly universally affordable.

Some of the regulations in the presidents plan put HSA's in legal limbo.
Because it requires lower deductibles and greater coinsurance coverage, as well as mandates on preventative care that has to be paid for by the insurance company.
 
The Rand Pauls need to explain to me..if no one has a right to healthcare and people that work or dont work and cant afford it gets sick...what happens. I want them to explain to me if someone with no healthcare gets a communicable disease what happens.
What happens when a 3 yr old of parents who dont have a right to healthcare and cant afford to buy it gets very sick.
We ship kids from all over the world to the USA for specialized surgeries that cant be done in their country for FREE here..we even pay the airfare...and we have americans like Rand Paul saying screw all of you that cant afford health care...he sucks imho
 
lpast said:
The Rand Pauls need to explain to me..if no one has a right to healthcare and people that work or dont work and cant afford it gets sick...what happens. I want them to explain to me if someone with no healthcare gets a communicable disease what happens.
What happens when a 3 yr old of parents who dont have a right to healthcare and cant afford to buy it gets very sick.
We ship kids from all over the world to the USA for specialized surgeries that cant be done in their country for FREE here..we even pay the airfare...and we have americans like Rand Paul saying screw all of you that cant afford health care...he sucks imho
Click to expand...

They die if no one cares about them. He love Ann Rand.

Harry Guerrilla said:
We were proposing that the elderly get vouchers for private insurance, but people thought they'd be dieing in the streets.
Click to expand...

Because the cost doesn't keep up with the rate of health inflation. Furthermore, theres nothing in the bill that states that insurance companies have to cover them, let alone not gouge them because they are old.

Badmutha said:
The Single Payer Government Run Health Care we currently have denies access to plenty wants and needs.........

AMAdenials.jpg


.....its not what YOU need........my enslaved friend. Its what the plantation owner decides what you need.




So what your really saying.......is Every American has a Right to the lower tier of a two-tier medical system..........
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the current system is broken right?
 
Last edited:
xpiher said:
Because the cost doesn't keep up with the rate of health inflation. Furthermore, theres nothing in the bill that states that insurance companies have to cover them, let alone not gouge them because they are old.
Click to expand...

If one insurance company charges way to much, based on actuarial numbers, then another will compete to earn the profit at a lower rate.

That is the nature of the world of business.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If one insurance company charges way to much, based on actuarial numbers, then another will compete to earn the profit at a lower rate.

That is the nature of the world of business.
Click to expand...

Thats not the point. Theres noting in the bill that prevents seniors from being dropped because they are too old or too sick.
 
xpiher said:
Thats not the point. Theres noting in the bill that prevents seniors from being dropped because they are too old or too sick.
Click to expand...

I'd support a contract language clarification bill.
Where the language in a contract must be in plain English that most people can understand.

That should help prevent people being dropped because of hidden or ambiguous clauses.
Contract law also requires that there be legal consideration, where someone can't create a contract where only one benefits and the other party doesn't.
That is already largely illegal.

Contract law is a fun topic (in my opinion), you should check it out.

Consideration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Let us all hope that such pronouncements propel Paul to the 2012 GOP nomination.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'd support a contract language clarification bill.
Where the language in a contract must be in plain English that most people can understand.

That should help prevent people being dropped because of hidden or ambiguous clauses.
Contract law also requires that there be legal consideration, where someone can't create a contract where only one benefits and the other party doesn't.
That is already largely illegal.

Contract law is a fun topic (in my opinion), you should check it out.

Consideration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I agree. I think we should go back to using contracts for nearly everything and pass a law that requires contracts to be written in plain English. But good luck with that happening. It isn't in any business best interest nor congress.
 
Badmutha said:
....only because you think slavery has to entail chains and whips.

If you believe you have a right to something such as affordable healthcare.....a right that cannot be denied.....then all those in the medical industry are subject to the government's behest.

When government dictates what the fruits of your labor is worth......you might not call it slavery, but even you cant call it freedom.



Government involvement has never "better managed" or brought down the costs of anything........

......unless you truely believe that people who have never ran anything---like our man-child president......can run everything.
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

I said nothing of whips and chains. I mentioned the absence of payment for services.

If you think the system we have now is freedom, you are sadly mistaken. Ask anyone who has been denied coverage for catastrophic illness.

Medicare is an example of a successful government program. Overhead, 3%. Insurance companies are in the mid 20's as far as overhead.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You've simply dismissed the ideas without reason.
That is my position, on your opinion.
Click to expand...

Again, I've addressed this with CP, giving reasns and link to support my reasoning. You leap to a conclusion that you really know little about.



No they don't eliminate choice because I can pursue other avenues of care, with another insurer or my own money.
Click to expand...

And you can with a single payer system just as freely.

In most of the countries UHC, private non UHC care is criminalized or restricted.
Your two teir approach is invalid because the 2nd tier in those countries is typically more expensive than the regular care here.
I currently do not need insurance to go to the doctor.

You are basing your whole argument on, everyone needs insurance (whether government or private) for everything, when that is patently false.
Click to expand...

The word most supports my point. Most is not equal to all. As I have noted many times, there are several different way to do a single payer system. Any such system here would be two tiered at the least. So, you would be free to buy more.

And no, out side of a very small number of extremely wealthy people, who likely have insurance, the vast majority cannot handle serious or emergent care. Many can't handle preventive and rountine care. When looking the health of thae majority, it is clear that we need some system that allows for greater access than we have now. I prefer a single payer system. But more than that, I would like our leaders on all sides to set aside the demonizing rethoric and try to actually address the problem.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, I've addressed this with CP, giving reasns and link to support my reasoning. You leap to a conclusion that you really know little about.
Click to expand...

There aren't any reasons why HSA type medical care won't work for most people, none what so ever.


Boo Radley said:
And you can with a single payer system just as freely.
Click to expand...

Except that would defy the reality of how most other UHC systems work.
Can I stop paying the tax to support it, if I am unhappy with it?
No.

No thanks, you take my money whether or not I want the service.

Boo Radley said:
The word most supports my point. Most is not equal to all. As I have noted many times, there are several different way to do a single payer system. Any such system here would be two tiered at the least. So, you would be free to buy more.

And no, out side of a very small number of extremely wealthy people, who likely have insurance, the vast majority cannot handle serious or emergent care. Many can't handle preventive and rountine care. When looking the health of thae majority, it is clear that we need some system that allows for greater access than we have now. I prefer a single payer system. But more than that, I would like our leaders on all sides to set aside the demonizing rethoric and try to actually address the problem.
Click to expand...

Two tiered has always manifested itself as UHC for everyone, but 2nd teir for the societal elite.
I do not want that, period.

You don't get it, you do not need insurance for routine care.
It can be easily paid for out of pocket, it is inexpensive and affordable.

People, like you, stuck in the 1980's mentality that we have to have insurance to cover everything is precisely why costs have risen, why insurance administration is huge, because people are not required to pay at point of service.
 
MrVicchio said:
Really. Well that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. I disagree. If you believe you have a RIGHT to some item, service or the like, then you are in fact compelling another person to provide it for you. What would happen Boo. if all the doctors in a city were to go on strike? Those that believe there is this mythical "right" to healthcare would then do what?

Hmm?
Click to expand...

They would only go on strike if you believe they have a right to organize to demand a proper and respectful wage for their skills and services.

So, you're painting yourself into a corner here.

Also, I know MANY doctors who don't take Medicare or Medicaid - thus leaving that market open to those who do.

I couldn't find a single Canadian doctor calling themselves "slaves" doing several differently-worded google searches. Tried the same for the UK and France. Still can't find any doctors in Norway who think of themselves as slaves either.
 
Gina said:
I said nothing of whips and chains. I mentioned the absence of payment for services.
Click to expand...

And when slaves are compensated with food and shelter.........you might realize that slavery isnt so much about the absence of compensation as it is the absence of CHOICE.......my enslaved friend.

If you think the system we have now is freedom, you are sadly mistaken. Ask anyone who has been denied coverage for catastrophic illness.
Click to expand...

So a system like Medicare--Who denies more claims than any Private Insurer.....is clearly the solution......

Medicare is an example of a successful government program. Overhead, 3%. Insurance companies are in the mid 20's as far as overhead.
Click to expand...

............and a $74,000,000,000,000.00 DOLLAR HOLE.........wake up.
.
.
.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Ya ya, you're trying to use history as a platform for your politics when you don't get at the root of the problem.
Click to expand...
No.

I'm using history to illustrate how the idea of allowing the free market system to go unchecked tends to plung the country into economic chaos and that such irresponsible actions usually stem from Right-leaning politics. It's not that deregulation is bad; it's the lack of federal oversight that tends to be the problem. For as history has shown when industries are allowed to police themselves, they usually take unnecessary risks. And when they take such risks it's usually the public that suffers for it. Moreover, when regulations are relaxed, the government usually attempts to put into place federal oversight committees to ensure industry stays on the level. But in nearly every instance where this has occurred and there's been Republican leadership, economic chaos has ensued because leadership turned a blind eye to the issues and favored profits over discipline or the interests of the very people they've sworn an oath to protect.

Again, don't take my word for it. Review history...
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
No.

I'm using history to illustrate how the idea of allowing the free market system to go unchecked tends to plung the country into economic chaos and that such irresponsible actions usually stem from Right-leaning politics. It's not that deregulation is bad; it's the lack of federal oversight that tends to be the problem. For as history has shown when industries are allowed to police themselves, they usually take unnecessary risks. And when they take such risks it's usually the public that suffers for it. Moreover, when regulations are relaxed, the government usually attempts to put into place federal oversight committees to ensure industry stays on the level. But in nearly every instance where this has occurred and there's been Republican leadership, economic chaos has ensued because leadership turned a blind eye to the issues and favored profits over discipline or the interests of the very people they've sworn an oath to protect.

Again, don't take my word for it. Review history...
Click to expand...

The US hasn't had a free market since after the peak of the industrial revolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom