• 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!

Healthcare MANAGEMENT is SIMPLE, Healthcare is COMPLICATED

No I just remove the section that says "government," "Medicare," and "Medicaid" and we're good.
 
JayDubya said:
No I just remove the section that says "government," "Medicare," and "Medicaid" and we're good.
Click to expand...

So you're Ok with being Pro-Life and sending American Citizens to War .. but God forbid they get sick on you and you have to care for them.
 
Cigar said:
So you're Ok with being Pro-Life and sending American Citizens to War .. but God forbid they get sick on you and you have to care for them.
Click to expand...

In JayDubya's "pro-life" world, "humans" are only to be protected until they have actually grown into fully-functioning humans.
 
Cigar said:
So you're Ok with being Pro-Life and sending American Citizens to War .. but God forbid they get sick on you and you have to care for them.
Click to expand...

I mean if the other country attacked us first, sure, otherwise not so much.

But yeah, no, government has no role to play in healthcare whatsoever.
 
JayDubya said:
I mean if the other country attacked us first, sure, otherwise not so much.

But yeah, no, government has no role to play in healthcare whatsoever.
Click to expand...

What are yo talking about ...

There is no Country without it's People ...

A Country is as Powerful as it's People ...
 
RickJames3000 said:
In JayDubya's "pro-life" world, "humans" are only to be protected until they have actually grown into fully-functioning humans.
Click to expand...

Is the aggressive homicide of born humans illegal? Yes.

Have you ever seen me say this should be otherwise? No.

Should you cram this obviously trolling retardation in one of your dark and tight orifices? Absolutely.
 
JayDubya said:
Is the aggressive homicide of born humans illegal? Yes.

Have you ever seen me say this should be otherwise? No.

Should you cram this obviously trolling retardation in one of your dark and tight orifices? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Should you stop leaking utter filth out of your loose and sloppy hole? Yes.
 
RickJames3000 said:
Should you stop leaking utter filth out of your loose and sloppy hole? Yes.
Click to expand...

You're the one leaking filth, and you're right, I'm sorry I suggested you had any tight orifices, I'm sure they're all well-used.

Fact remains you don't have a counterpoint, just the usual trolling bull****.
 
JayDubya said:
You're the one leaking filth, and you're right, I'm sorry I suggested you had any tight orifices, I'm sure they're all well-used.

Fact remains you don't have a counterpoint, just the usual trolling bull****.
Click to expand...

A counterpoint is unnecessary when you expose yourself as a hypocrite, which you often do.
 
JayDubya said:
You're the one leaking filth, and you're right, I'm sorry I suggested you had any tight orifices, I'm sure they're all well-used.

Fact remains you don't have a counterpoint, just the usual trolling bull****.
Click to expand...

As usual and right on-time ... and right on Que

The minute someone post something they don't like to hear, they cry to Mam and scram Bait/Troll/Help ... we must shut them up.
 
RickJames3000 said:
A counterpoint is unnecessary when you expose yourself as a hypocrite, which you often do.
Click to expand...

Oh good, direct namecalling, now we're getting somewhere.

By all means, continue.


But of course, back in reality consistently opposing socialism and consistently opposing aggressive killing is no kind of hypocrisy.
 
JayDubya said:
Oh good, direct namecalling, now we're getting somewhere.

By all means, continue.


But of course, back in reality consistently opposing socialism and consistently opposing aggressive killing is no kind of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

More hypocrisy from the "Libertarian" Against Choice?! Shocking.
You chose to respond to my comment up-thread with this gem:

"Should you cram this obviously trolling retardation in one of your dark and tight orifices? Absolutely."

Now you want to talk about "name-calling"?!:lol:
 
Cigar said:
View attachment 67215730
Click to expand...
Though I generally think single payer is a least worse solution, that image is grossly dishonest. For example, it seems to assume that administrative waste would somehow be magically eliminated from both the healthcare management and the hospitals and that there would be literally no healthcare of any kind that wouldn’t be managed (and thus funded) outside the single payer structure.

It’s almost so bad that I could believe it was actually created to discredit the idea.
 
RickJames3000 said:
More hypocrisy from the "Libertarian" Against Choice?! Shocking.
You chose to respond to my comment up-thread with this gem:

"Should you cram this obviously trolling retardation in one of your dark and tight orifices? Absolutely."

Now you want to talk about "name-calling"?!:lol:
Click to expand...

The only way that could be name-calling would be if you personally identify as the physical manifestation of the concept of retardation itself, and even then it would be difficult to cram yourself into yourself. :lol:
 
HonestJoe said:
Though I generally think single payer is a least worse solution, that image is grossly dishonest. For example, it seems to assume that administrative waste would somehow be magically eliminated from both the healthcare management and the hospitals and that there would be literally no healthcare of any kind that wouldn’t be managed (and thus funded) outside the single payer structure.

It’s almost so bad that I could believe it was actually created to discredit the idea.
Click to expand...

While I agree with the second part of your sentence, the first part is like chewing on tin foil.....

The worst solution, IMO, is having the government in control of a person's health care, and effectively, that is what it would be.

With for-profit health insurance, the insurer may decline to pay for whatever service you want, but you can still get it by paying for it out of your own pocket.

With the government in control, there are too many means for the government to prevent (and I'm not saying it's actually legal, but that hasn't stopped them yet) an individual from legally obtaining services they desire.

I believe Medicare/Medicaid should be expanded for those in the low/no income groups, and leave the rest of us to make our choices regarding insurance and healthcare.
 
Liberals could not manage single payer/socialized medicine at the VA

And now they want to extend government incompetence to the entire healthcare system?
 
GottaGo said:
The worst solution, IMO, is having the government in control of a person's health care, and effectively, that is what it would be.
Click to expand...
Only in the same way than you currently have the insurance companies in control. There are obviously difference in the consequences between the two situations but I’d argue against the idea of either being significantly worse.

GottaGo said:
With for-profit health insurance, the insurer may decline to pay for whatever service you want, but you can still get it by paying for it out of your own pocket.
Click to expand...
You can do that in a single payer system too.

GottaGo said:
With the government in control, there are too many means for the government to prevent (and I'm not saying it's actually legal, but that hasn't stopped them yet) an individual from legally obtaining services they desire.
Click to expand...
A government could do that regardless, especially if they’re willing to break the law. Insurance companies can (and do) manipulate the system to the disadvantage of patients too. Again, neither prospect is automatically worse than the other.

GottaGo said:
I believe Medicare/Medicaid should be expanded for those in the low/no income groups, and leave the rest of us to make our choices regarding insurance and healthcare.
Click to expand...
So single payer but without the biggest payers getting any benefit from it? ;) Seriously though, it’s not an unreasonable proposal but not one without its problems, particularly on that line just above where-ever you set your Medicaid maximum income barrier. You also still have extensive government involvement which seems to be the basis for a lot of your concerns.
 
HonestJoe said:
A government could do that regardless, especially if they’re willing to break the law. Insurance companies can (and do) manipulate the system to the disadvantage of patients too. Again, neither prospect is automatically worse than the other..
Click to expand...
I see this argument sometimes and I disagree.
Government is by its nature, dramatically larger and more powerful than a single insurance company. And, its actions can sometimes involve the creation of laws, bringing legality to its behavior implicitly. Where insurance has to abide the law, is more susceptible to legal process, etc.
I have choices with insurance. I don't have choices with government.
 
Mach said:
I see this argument sometimes and I disagree.
Government is by its nature, dramatically larger and more powerful than a single insurance company. And, its actions can sometimes involve the creation of laws, bringing legality to its behavior implicitly. Where insurance has to abide the law, is more susceptible to legal process, etc.
I have choices with insurance. I don't have choices with government.
Click to expand...
Government also has internal and external checks and balances plus pretty much constant internal divisions that often prevent definitive decisions (see the current US situation with healthcare law). The actual government departments on the ground operate much more like insurance companies in practical terms (with some of the resultant flaws).

Insurance companies have fewer limitations (especially since government would need to make decisions to impose them) and necessarily less patient orientated motives – they’re generally limited companies and thus have a priority on making a profit, not holistic healthcare, diverse provision or preventative medicine for example. Choice of insurance company is a selling point of a private market but then the false advertising, miss-selling and profiteering that inevitably occur as a result of that is a big negative.
 
HonestJoe said:
Only in the same way than you currently have the insurance companies in control. There are obviously difference in the consequences between the two situations but I’d argue against the idea of either being significantly worse.

You can do that in a single payer system too.

A government could do that regardless, especially if they’re willing to break the law. Insurance companies can (and do) manipulate the system to the disadvantage of patients too. Again, neither prospect is automatically worse than the other.

So single payer but without the biggest payers getting any benefit from it? ;) Seriously though, it’s not an unreasonable proposal but not one without its problems, particularly on that line just above where-ever you set your Medicaid maximum income barrier. You also still have extensive government involvement which seems to be the basis for a lot of your concerns.
Click to expand...

While I'm no conspiracy theorist, if the government decided you shouldn't have X, then it can be enforced in many different ways. Decisions could be made that 'you' are too old, or mentally impaired, etc, and therefore you don't need a heart valve or some such. It could be 'enforced' via sanctions on the hospital or facility.

Without the government involvement, the insurance companies can be bypassed if you pay for it yourself. Insurance companies aren't capable of the sanctions the government can, nor would they likely bother.

Yes, the government involved in my personal health care is a concern, for me and many others. As I said, if there are those who don't care, then let them be a part of the group that accepts it. Just leave those who don't want the government directing their healthcare, out of it.

I deal with enough health insurance information and policies at work, to have a fairly good grasp of the basics, and I definitely deal with the impact of health care/health insurance of a large group of employees. It's interesting that those on the entry level jobs don't care if the government runs 'insurance', but those in Management understand the long term realities of it.
 
GottaGo said:
While I'm no conspiracy theorist, if the government decided you shouldn't have X, then it can be enforced in many different ways. Decisions could be made that 'you' are too old, or mentally impaired, etc, and therefore you don't need a heart valve or some such. It could be 'enforced' via sanctions on the hospital or facility.
Click to expand...
Theoretically yes, but they could do that regardless of the healthcare system, even if they're not directly involved in the normal running of it. I don't see how that fear (however rational) is relevant to this particular question.

GottaGo said:
Without the government involvement, the insurance companies can be bypassed if you pay for it yourself. Insurance companies aren't capable of the sanctions the government can, nor would they likely bother.
Click to expand...
Again, with single payer, individual patients are still free to bypass the system and pay for private care directly.

I don't see why insurance companies would be any less likely to impose whatever restrictions they're capable of that suit their ends than government.

GottaGo said:
It's interesting that those on the entry level jobs don't care if the government runs 'insurance', but those in Management understand the long term realities of it.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. That kind of subtle insult towards people who disagree with you doesn't your argument no credit.
 
"I don't care what's in the bill. I just want a ceremony."
~ Donald Trump on the American Health Care Act colloquially known as Chump Care.


Let's try to wrap our heads around that.

This Moron was willing to throw 24 Million people off of health care, some of whom would get sick and die, for the glory of a signing ceremony. :doh
 
HonestJoe said:
Theoretically yes, but they could do that regardless of the healthcare system, even if they're not directly involved in the normal running of it. I don't see how that fear (however rational) is relevant to this particular question.

Again, with single payer, individual patients are still free to bypass the system and pay for private care directly.

I don't see why insurance companies would be any less likely to impose whatever restrictions they're capable of that suit their ends than government.

Rubbish. That kind of subtle insult towards people who disagree with you doesn't your argument no credit.
Click to expand...

Insurance companies are a paid entity, and you used to be able to walk away from them (prior to the PPACA), and hopefully will be able to do so again in the near future. Insurance companies do not have the capabilities to impose restrictions if you are not their customer. You really don't have much option (other than leaving the country) if the government were to impose restrictions (legal or not).

It has nothing to do with people who disagree with me, it is an observation, that younger people in general (and I know I was that way) think they are invincible , and have a 'meh' attitude towards healthcare. Those who are in management have been around the track once or twice, appreciate the value of good healthcare, and understand what government involvement could mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom