• 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!

Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

What if...? said:
You do realize that what YOU are referring to as death panels is already fully extant in private insurance, right.
Click to expand...

Having a 1,000 different "Death Panels" administered by 1,000 different insurance companies and regulated by a neutral referee (government) is a far cry from having, eventually, only 1 "Death Panel" administered by the entity which is supposed to be the neutral referee.

When Government doesn't have a stake in the outcome it can be more effective in making neutral decisions than when the government benefits by restricting the provision of health care.
 
RiverDad said:
A social welfare state needs money in order to operate, just like a body needs blood to keep all the organs functioning. A rich person provides a lot of money for the social welfare state to spend. A poor person provides no money, in fact, they are the recipient of money provided by the rich person. In a social welfare state the rich person is more valuable than the poor person. If you could conduct a Gedankenexperiment and vaporize the top 100,000 income earners in the US or the bottom 100,000 income earners in the US and then measure the effect of those vaporizations on the rest of society, you'd find that all of the wealth that the top 100,000 generated via their talents has been lost to society and that society is now measurably poorer for having lost those 100,000 top income earners. On the other hand, with the bottom 100,000 income earners vaporized you find that society is now measurably richer because the wealth that is extracted from the NET CONTRIBUTORS of taxes can now be allocated to a smaller base of NET RECIPIENTS, thus making all of the recipients that much better off.

In a non welfare state, that is in a society with no government mandated wealth redistribution, if you did the same Gedankenexperiment there would no spillover effects to the rest of society for governments don't redistribute wealth and because of this the wealth that disappeared would have no effect on the rest of society. In this society everyone's life is valued equally.
Click to expand...

Rent is government enforced wealth distribution. Encircling of the Commons. Started about the 14th century in Europe. COMPETELY a product of government. Without it, private property is limited to what you can personally defend. All the other things you rail against are ALSO a product of government.

You pick and choose, as many do, what is "good" government and what is "bad". Landlords have nothing to sell without enforcement of various vagrancy laws, which obviously levy a tax of 25% or more of gross on ALL renters. Enforced by men with guns in the employ of the GOVERNMENT.

You keep trying to divert with some kind of "that's the way its always been" argument which is false on its face. Then bitch about some OTHER function of govt you don't like like only THAT thing is subject to revision.
 
Helix said:
Certainly seems a much better idea to expand Medicare to cover everyone. This is just one more example of an essential service with inelastic demand not being best served by for-profit companies.

Mandating private insurance is one of the most inefficient ways to address the problem, but people think offering health services equals communism. So if you want to keep your "free market" for every non-communist under age 65, you'll have to buy in.
Click to expand...

An insurance mandate is the only semi-practical alternative the conservatives could come up with as an alternative to UHC that the rest of the industrialized world uses. It is far from ideal, and IMO will eventually have to be replaced with UHC.
 
tessaesque said:
Single payer doesn't address the problem either. All it does is set artificial pricing levels, which will lead to rationed care and limited access to the more expensive (but often best) diagnostic tools and treatmeant options.
Click to expand...

We already have rationed care and limited access to health care. What the statistics show is that more people have access to health care under UHC.
 
RiverDad said:
Your Kung-Fu is strong but my Kung Fu is stronger. Hah. Hah.

I have anticipated your response and that is why I referenced "income earners" instead of "wealthy people." The income earners are using their talents to create new wealth every year whereas the wealthy are riding into the future on the benefits that they've already earned in the past.



This puts the state into the position of Death Paneling people. You note that it is in the "state's interest." That's the problem that people have with Death Panels.

I don't want the value of my life to be calculated by some bureaucrat who looks at what I contribute to the state versus what I cost the state. When people become dependent on government's money and good graces then they are also at the mercy of government. I'd rather know that I have a fixed amount of resources available to me with which I have to provide for my expensive medical care needs and know that when it comes time to ration those resources that I, or my loved ones, will be making the decisions and that if there is money to be saved that it be saved and allocated to help my family and that if they don't want the money then they can decide to blow the whole wad on keeping me alive hooked up to machines for another 4 months. Society really has no business involving itself in my end of life choices and journey.
Click to expand...

Sorry, still don't see your cite from the ACA that rations care. What page and section? Sorry if I missed it in your wall of opinion.
 
Catawba said:
We already have rationed care and limited access to health care. What the statistics show is that more people have access to health care under UHC.
Click to expand...

Access doesn't solve the problem of cost. Arbitrarily setting prices doesn't solve the problem of cost. UHC does not solve the problem of cost. Introducing a tax that would pay for everybody to have "free" healthcare coverage would cause more problems right now.

You want to fix the problems? Do it the right way. Fix what's broken with the rest of the system before you put a bunch of people who, by the left's general definition, are "barely getting by" on the hook to pay for it.
 
Catawba said:
And for less money. Some people seem to think that transferring all health care insurance to the private sector is going to save them money, when in fact it will just make it more expensive for everyone by adding increased administration cost and profit.

It will only make health care even more expensive than it already is. I fail to see how this would be an improvement.
Click to expand...

The invisible hand will do it with unicorn fur and fairy spit.
 
KaptainKraK said:
I agree with tessaesque, Ron Paul did not say this, I believe that if your going to start a debate, start it with a true question like....
Do you agree with the audience of the debate, on whether we should deny life-saving medical care to the uninsured?
Click to expand...

Let's make sure we're clear, here: The question was about a healthy, prosperous young guy who voluntarily CHOOSES not to purchase health insurance:

“A healthy, 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides: You know what? I'm not going to spend 200 or 300 dollars a month for health insurance, because I'm healthy; I don't need it,” Blitzer said. “But you know, something terrible happens; all of a sudden, he needs it. Who's going to pay for it, if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?"

“In a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him,” Paul replied. Blitzer asked what Paul would prefer to having government deal with the sick man.

“What he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself,” Paul said. ”My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not before —"

“But he doesn't have that,” Blitzer said. “He doesn't have it and he's — and he needs — he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?”

“That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks.,” Paul said, repeating the standard libertarian view as some in the audience cheered.

“But congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die,” Blitzer asked.

“Yeah,” came the shout from the audience.
 
tessaesque said:
Access doesn't solve the problem of cost. Arbitrarily setting prices doesn't solve the problem of cost. UHC does not solve the problem of cost. Introducing a tax that would pay for everybody to have "free" healthcare coverage would cause more problems right now.

You want to fix the problems? Do it the right way. Fix what's broken with the rest of the system before you put a bunch of people who, by the left's general definition, are "barely getting by" on the hook to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Most of the problems with cost in our current system are a direct result of it being private sector. This is one of those situations where the profit motive is a bad thing, not a good thing. Everyone along the line wants as much of that juicy wealth as possible, so when your money finally actually gets to treating you, there's not a whole lot of it left.
 
atrasicarius said:
As I said, it's hard to define. Yes, it's preventative care. No, it's not elective surgery and procedures. Basically, you have a certain amount of money to spend on health care. Someone's going to have to make a system for determining who gets what treatments based on the cost, the severity of the condition, how old the patient is, how common the condition is, and so on. Enough is basically the best we can reasonably do at any given time.
Click to expand...

The amount of waste that can be prevented with basic preventative care makes it worth doing. If that's ALL it was.

The idea we can go to the moon but can't come up with some hybrid solution to the problem is ****ing pathetic.
 
atrasicarius said:
Most of the problems with cost in our current system are a direct result of it being private sector. This is one of those situations where the profit motive is a bad thing, not a good thing. Everyone along the line wants as much of that juicy wealth as possible, so when your money finally actually gets to treating you, there's not a whole lot of it left.
Click to expand...

I would say I need some sort of studies for that. Because I believe a large part of the cost problem is the fact that we allow patent law to side with BigPharm. I question the profit issue for health care providers for the simple fact that many hospitals have to rely on charity and grants to stay afloat. We should stop treating medicine like a golden calf and start treating it like business. As I said before, there are plenty of means of changing the face of medicine without putting everybody further into financial strain to do it. Or at least without doing it first.
 
Last edited:
What if...? said:
The amount of waste that can be prevented with basic preventative care makes it worth doing. If that's ALL it was.

The idea we can go to the moon but can't come up with some hybrid solution to the problem is ****ing pathetic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, today's America sure as **** couldn't muster the political will to go to the moon.
 
lpast said:
So basically Aussie has a taxed system to pay for Universal health care to cover everyone...and if you have the money to pay for cadillac private care you can....isnt that the same for any country that has universal healthcare....if your rich you can use a paid private system ?
Click to expand...

I don't believe so. Iirc. Many forbid for profit healthcare. Doesn't mean we can't have a hybrid system. Just means the for profit sector wont make as much money because they lose the "pay us or die" factor they enjoy now.
 
If you ask me, I would not want to live in a society that denies people medication and treatment, when the resources are there, just in the wrong hands.

Neither would I want to live in a society that connects one's access to health care to your respective financial wealth.

Such a society is barbaric.

And I can't help but go Godwin on the "natural selection" remark, in case it was not made tongue in cheek: That's a social darwinistic kind of argumentation. The lapse from turning a descriptive observation in nature into a normative statement. Just because something is like this or that in the realm of animals, it doesn't mean it's ethically sound to model human society after this principle. In fact, it is even evil in most cases. I believe humans should hold themselves to a higher yardstick than animals.
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
so, again,, explain how the "haves" helping the "have nots" does anything for the COMMON good.
Click to expand...

It saves money that would have to be spent preventing the have nots from eating the haves.
 
tessaesque said:
I would say I need some sort of studies for that. Because I believe a large part of the cost problem is the fact that we allow patent law to side with BigPharm. I question the profit issue for health care providers for the simple fact that many hospitals have to rely on charity and grants to stay afloat. We should stop treating medicine like a golden calf and start treating it like business. As I said before, there are plenty of means of changing the face of medicine without putting everybody further into financial strain to do it. Or at least without doing it first.
Click to expand...

Well, I would consider the whole patent issue a problem cause by the profit motive at base, although the government does let them get away with it. Here's something you might find interesting, though:
Medicare vs. Non-Government (Private) Health Insurance - Health Care Reform - ProCon.org
 
lpast said:
So basically Aussie has a taxed system to pay for Universal health care to cover everyone...and if you have the money to pay for cadillac private care you can....isnt that the same for any country that has universal healthcare....if your rich you can use a paid private system ?
Click to expand...

you don't have to be rich to use the private system. a family cover can cost you around $50.00 per week and a single person can obtain cover for around $25 per week.
 
Serenity said:
you don't have to be rich to use the private system. a family cover can cost you around $50.00 per week and a single person can obtain cover for around $25 per week.
Click to expand...

that's interesting; i always wondered what the private plans looked like in nations with UHC.

in the US, my current group rate for a single male is $70 a week. were i to COBRA it, it would be $140 a week, or around $560 a month. granted, i have health care that actually covers health care expenses. many of the cheaper plans nickle and dime you and set up a maze that you have to navigate to not be denied coverage. and even if you're good at mazes, the coverage often sucks. the best bet is to buy the most expensive plan offered, unless you want to play the casino game and try to scrape by with minimal or no coverage. i would not advise that.

overall, plan premiums are going up by 20 percent a year on the low end and much faster in some places. wages are stagnant. it's unsustainable.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
From the post you responded to? Yes. Absolutely. No way to argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Absolutely.


PzKfW IVe said:
-You- brought up the idea of judging the value of on person over another. I merely applied what you said to the 'must provide treatment' argument, which does exactly that. Thus, it was NOT a non sequitur from YOUR response.
:shrug:
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Refusing to treat someone because they cannot pay is putting the value of money over or equal to the value of their life. It's a logical conclusion following your original statement.

PzKfW IVe said:
And... you have STILL not responded to the actual point I made in my post - thus, you continue the red herring.
Click to expand...

Still wrong. i addressed every point in your post.
 
tessaesque said:
Access doesn't solve the problem of cost. Arbitrarily setting prices doesn't solve the problem of cost. UHC does not solve the problem of cost. Introducing a tax that would pay for everybody to have "free" healthcare coverage would cause more problems right now.

You want to fix the problems? Do it the right way. Fix what's broken with the rest of the system before you put a bunch of people who, by the left's general definition, are "barely getting by" on the hook to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Most of what's broke with our health care system is allowing unregulated profit on health care in the private system. All the countries that have UHC have lower costs than our private system. How would paying less for UHC than we currently pay for private health care hurt our economy?
 
PzKfW IVe said:
No one should - no one CAN - be forced to buy good or services of any kind as a basic requirement of citizenship.
Click to expand...

But I AM forced to pay rent. Sorry to keep using the obvious example of a coercive force being used to force someone to buy something they don't want to buy. But you guys think THAT one is perfectly ok.
 
tessaesque said:
Access doesn't solve the problem of cost. Arbitrarily setting prices doesn't solve the problem of cost. UHC does not solve the problem of cost. Introducing a tax that would pay for everybody to have "free" healthcare coverage would cause more problems right now.

You want to fix the problems? Do it the right way. Fix what's broken with the rest of the system before you put a bunch of people who, by the left's general definition, are "barely getting by" on the hook to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Imagine if you will, a world where mri's and drugs are developed by scientists, for the same salary and the same "stake" in what they develop for a for-profit employer (none).

I promise you that $700 per MRI cost would come WAY DOWN.

And I've never met a scientist who refuses to work for an employer because it wont result in the enrichment of a stockholder.

Way too much of medical expense is captive markets and marketing.

The percentage of "bringing a new drug to market" that goes to marketing ALONE will shock those who blindly support for-profit medicine.

Or not. If this thread is any indicator, most will simply not see anything that goes off-message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom