• 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?

Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die? Hell, we should assist them. :thumbs:
 
Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die? Hell, we should assist them. :thumbs:

Well, if they are uninsured because they are poor, we already do. Did you have more in mind? Payments to their families for neglecting them to death, mayhaps? Easier access to poisons in poor neighborhoods?
 
Well, if they are uninsured because they are poor, we already do. Did you have more in mind? Payments to their families for neglecting them to death, mayhaps? Easier access to poisons in poor neighborhoods?

I'm sorry, there is nothing in the consitution that says you have a right to medical treatment.
 
I'm sorry, there is nothing in the consitution that says you have a right to medical treatment.

This lame argument grates on me, tessaesque. So much of modern life is not contemplated by the original constitution. The Framers were not seers.

Wanna dissasemble the NTSB as well?
 
I'm sorry, there is nothing in the consitution that says you have a right to medical treatment.
More importantly...
There's nothing in the Constitution that allows the goverment to force other people to provide medical treatment to you.
 
This lame argument grates on me, tessaesque. So much of modern life is not contemplated by the original constitution. The Framers were not seers.

Wanna dissasemble the NTSB as well?

I'm sorry if it grates on you, but it isn't a lame argument. Medical treatment is a product. Nobody has the right to a product. You may feel as though we morally obligated to give free products to people, but I don't feel that way. We must focus on making people self-sustainable instead of focusing on freebies and hand-outs. If you took everything from the "haves" and gave it to the "have nots" out of some moral imperative to help the "downtrodden" we wouldn't be able to sustain for much longer than a few months. This idea that the rich must take care of the "poor" can very easily lead to a situation where so much money has gone into helping a group of people stagnate that there is no "rich", and nowhere for the money to come from...but the problem will still exist.

I totally get helping people. But you're doing it wrong if you think the best way to do that is to take from everybody else first. That doesn't help...not really. It transfers the problems on to the backs of another group...and when that group is the solution to every single problem we have....the solution will disappear eventually.

So if you feel as though everybody needs access to healthcare, why don't you focus on creating solutions that will allow people to provide if for themselves, instead of stealing from others.
 
I'm sorry if it grates on you, but it isn't a lame argument. Medical treatment is a product. Nobody has the right to a product. You may feel as though we morally obligated to give free products to people, but I don't feel that way. We must focus on making people self-sustainable instead of focusing on freebies and hand-outs. If you took everything from the "haves" and gave it to the "have nots" out of some moral imperative to help the "downtrodden" we wouldn't be able to sustain for much longer than a few months. This idea that the rich must take care of the "poor" can very easily lead to a situation where so much money has gone into helping a group of people stagnate that there is no "rich", and nowhere for the money to come from...but the problem will still exist.

I totally get helping people. But you're doing it wrong if you think the best way to do that is to take from everybody else first. That doesn't help...not really. It transfers the problems on to the backs of another group...and when that group is the solution to every single problem we have....the solution will disappear eventually.

So if you feel as though everybody needs access to healthcare, why don't you focus on creating solutions that will allow people to provide if for themselves, instead of stealing from others.

So much anger in your post. Taxes are not "stealing". Covering everyone means that the middle class family with a devastating injury or illness need not fear the lifetime cap, etc.

I get that you had bad experiences with medical care delivered by the government.....others have not. Must we all be denied care because you are fearful?
 
So much anger in your post. Taxes are not "stealing". Covering everyone means that the middle class family with a devastating injury or illness need not fear the lifetime cap, etc.

I get that you had bad experiences with medical care delivered by the government.....others have not. Must we all be denied care because you are fearful?

First of all, I'm not angry. I'm a realist.

Taxes are most certainly "stealing" when you take disporportionately from one group to benefit another, isolated group. If healthcare is too expensive then fix the problems in healthcare. Don't solve the problem by using the "rich" as a scapegoat. Every single financial problem we have...the solution is always "we've gotta tax the rich more, we gotta get it from them." They aren't an unlimited fountain of funds. You keep using them as the source of all your solutions and eventually the well's going to run dry.

Then what? How do you give more and more and more to people who are perfectly capable once you've taken everything from the top 5%?...when they're now in that pool of "poor" needing help? Where do you go then?

I'm telling you. Fix what's wrong with the system before you demand that other people act as the bandaid. Stop ignoring that the problem isn't fixed simply by taking more money from the rich. Stop acting like those of us who view it pragmatically are heartless, or afraid. We realize what none of y'all want to admit. Your stupid little idea of going after the top 5% is just as unsustainable (if not more so) than any other system or solution suggested. You're ignoring the bigger issue for the sake of continuing some sort of bull**** class warfare nonsense.
 
So much anger in your post. Taxes are not "stealing". Covering everyone means that the middle class family with a devastating injury or illness need not fear the lifetime cap, etc.

"Covering everyone" means forcing people to pay for goods and services rendered to someone else.
This is nothing more than involutary servitude, a form of slavery.
 
First of all, I'm not angry. I'm a realist.

Taxes are most certainly "stealing" when you take disporportionately from one group to benefit another, isolated group. If healthcare is too expensive then fix the problems in healthcare. Don't solve the problem by using the "rich" as a scapegoat. Every single financial problem we have...the solution is always "we've gotta tax the rich more, we gotta get it from them." They aren't an unlimited fountain of funds. You keep using them as the source of all your solutions and eventually the well's going to run dry.

Then what? How do you give more and more and more to people who are perfectly capable once you've taken everything from the top 5%?...when they're now in that pool of "poor" needing help? Where do you go then?

I'm telling you. Fix what's wrong with the system before you demand that other people act as the bandaid. Stop ignoring that the problem isn't fixed simply by taking more money from the rich. Stop acting like those of us who view it pragmatically are heartless, or afraid. We realize what none of y'all want to admit. Your stupid little idea of going after the top 5% is just as unsustainable (if not more so) than any other system or solution suggested. You're ignoring the bigger issue for the sake of continuing some sort of bull**** class warfare nonsense.

Well, thankies for impunging my motives...but I suppose that's fair, as I did it to you.

IMO, health care is not suitable for insurance. There's no "risk" as we will all need it, sooner or later. I'd like to see it expanded to include dental and mental health care.

I don't see it as wealth distribution....we'd all benefit from living among healthier people.
 
"Covering everyone" means forcing people to pay for goods and services rendered to someone else.
This is nothing more than involutary servitude, a form of slavery.

Hyberpole much?

We are all "forced" to pay for highways we'll never use, etc. In your view, we all are slaves as it is.

Which is nonsense, but that's another thread.
 
Really.
Please show how your response flows logically from what I said in the post you responded to.
Before you further embarass yourself, you should probably go back and read what that post said.

It's really rather tragic that have to break this down for you step by step. It's basic knowledge, but then again, I have found that people who adhere to extreme political ideologies don't follow logic very well. Nevertheless, here is the scenario:

1.) A man is uninsured and does not have sufficient income to pay for his health care.
2.) He becomes extremely ill and needs treatment to stay alive.
3.) He goes to a health care provider, but is refused care because he doesn't have the funds to cover it, and he is sent home to die.

Therefore, it follows that:

1.) The services given by the health care providers are of equal or exceeding value than his life; Otherwise, if his life had more value than the health care services, it follows that he would have been provided with said health care services.

Got it now? Definitely not a non sequitur.

I am -absolutely- correct.

Nonsense. As usual, extreme "conservatives" ignore variables that counter their narrow paradigms. I presented several scenarios and variables that needed to be considered before discounting that preventative care could decrease the cost of health care. i also presented the cheaper alternatives, and explained why ethics had to be considered. But I guess I forgot that ethics are apparently irrelevant to 'very conservative" people. That is unless they are trying to control people's reproductive habits or sexual preferences. :shrug:

You clearly do not understand the point.

What do I not understand? If you're going to accuse me of that, at least have the decency to be more specific.

No... not the value of money... but the value of the time and effort that the person who is paying for the goods and services he did not receive expended in order to cover the costs of your medical care, and his right to retain these things for his own use.

It is illogical to attempt to separate money from goods and services when people exchange the value of their goods and services for money.

After all, HE earned it; you did not.

I never denied that health care providers EARN their living. I am going back to a university to become a nurse, so believe me, I understand their need to be paid. However, I am attempting to address an ethical issue here. That is the part of my argument that you are either refusing to acknowledge, or you simply don't comprehend the point.

You're arguing that your right supercedes his, and so he should pay for your medical treatment.

I pay for my own goods and services. But some people cannot. Once again, does the value of the goods and services (monetary value) provided supersede the value of a human life? Yes or no?


With an apalling degree of inefficacy.

You are entitled to your opinion.
 
Hyberpole much?

There's no hyperbole whatsoever, as my statement is an accurate charaterization of the situation.
You may attempt to argue otherwise at your leisure.

We are all "forced" to pay for highways we'll never use, etc.
Apples and oranges. Highways are not goods/services provided to someone else - medical treatment is.
 
It's really rather tragic that have to break this down for you step by step. It's basic knowledge, but then again, I have found that people who adhere to extreme political ideologies don't follow logic very well. Nevertheless, here is the scenario:

1.) A man is uninsured and does not have sufficient income to pay for his health care.
2.) He becomes extremely ill and needs treatment to stay alive.
3.) He goes to a health care provider, but is refused care because he doesn't have the funds to cover it, and he is sent home to die.

Therefore, it follows that:

1.) The services given by the health care providers are of equal or exceeding value than his life; Otherwise, if his life had more value than the health care services, it follows that he would have been provided with said health care services.

Got it now? Definitely not a non sequitur.
Apparently you have fogotten that the statemt you responded to was....

Post 188
You give the provider the choice to treat him at risk of doing so w/o compenation, or to not treat him.
If they choose to treat someone that cannot pay, then they choose to take whatever loss that may result.
As I said: Non sequitur.

What do I not understand?
See above.

It is illogical to attempt to separate money from goods and services when people exchange the value of their goods and services for money.
Not at all.
If something is worth $100, that's a monetary evaluation. $100 is $100 wherever you go.
If something is worth 2 days labor in a coal mine, that's NOT a monetary evaluation, as there's a lot more to that than the wages earned.
Why do you think your life is worth more than someone else's 2 days in a coal mine?

However, I am attempting to address an ethical issue here.
No kidding -- it is -very- clear that you want to impose your version of morality of others, and force people to pay for the implementation of same. Most people like you don't admit this. Good for you.

I pay for my own goods and services. But some people cannot. Once again, does the value of the goods and services (monetary value) provided supersede the value of a human life? Yes or no?
This has been addressed. Re-asking the questiuon will not result in a different answer.

You are entitled to your opinion.
Which, as we see, has been supported in full.
 
Last edited:
More importantly...
There's nothing in the Constitution that allows the goverment to force other people to provide medical treatment to you.

I wonder why conservatives devised the idea of an insurance mandate then?
 
I wonder why conservatives devised the idea of an insurance mandate then?

Arguments like this really don't move the discussion forward unless the person you're addressing supported the elected officials when they proposed it. I was too damn young when they did it to know what it meant, but when I was old enough to get it I didn't support it.

So perhaps you would be better expressing your point as a question. Otherwise, all you're doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of politicians, which is well known and pervasive.
 
Herring, red.
:roll:

Facts are red herrings to you eh?

"Republicans were for President Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the Republican presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest Republican senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed."

"In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

"The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits -- two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received -- by the George H.W. Bush administration."

Read more: Republicans Hatched Idea For Obama's Health Insurance Mandate | Fox News
 
Facts are red herrings to you eh?
When, as now, they are not germane to the topic at hand and introduced in order to misdirect the conversation away from a point you cannot defend, yes.
Recess is over - you better head back inside.
 
When, as now, they are not germane to the topic at hand and introduced in order to misdirect the conversation away from a point you cannot defend, yes.
Recess is over - you better head back inside.

The origin of the health insurance mandate is not germane to a discussion of the health insurance mandate???
 
I wonder why conservatives devised the idea of an insurance mandate then?

Because getting people to take personal responsibility for their own health care is a good conservative idea. One I would support.

But when Obama used the idea... it became all about "Freedom".... Teabrain idiocy and hypocrisy.

Here, let me allow the far righties to shoot down the mandate in its purist form...

1) You take responsibility for yourself by purchasing health insurance. You have the choice of plans and extent of coverage.

2) If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice (to not be responsible)...

3) However, so the rest of us don't have to foot the bill should you have a major medical emergency, we ask that you pay a very reasonable fee on tax day.

How much more conservative could you get? Yet Babs Bachman can't wrap her tiny brain around it. It's total freedom.
 
The origin of the health insurance mandate is not germane to a discussion of the health insurance mandate???
The discussion, as should be clear to you, is about the morality of letting people die if they cannot pay for their medical care.

That certan Republicans (note that Republicans and conservatives are not necessarily the same thing) supported the idea of an insurance mandate is not germane to that discussion - and, as such, you are doing nothing other than trying to derail the thread with your red herring.

Now, go troll somewhere else before someone passess out pitchforks and torches.
 
That certan Republicans (note that Republicans and conservatives are not necessarily the same thing) supported the idea of an insurance mandate is not germane to that discussion - and, as such, you are doing nothing other than trying to derail the thread with your red herring.

Um...FAIL... it was a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK that came up with idea.

Republicans generally crap all over it solely because Obama used it... More evidence it's all about the black man in the White House.
 
More evidence it's all about the black man in the White House.

was wondering how long it would take.....

Losing-Liberals1.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom