• 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!

Health Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

Is access to health care a privilege, right or responsibility?


  • Total voters
    91
I assume you are in a flippant way saying that everyone needs healthcare. Even so, we can be forced into it.
Not exactly. Some will not change their mind when they have a health problem and trust in God. So, should we accomidate them by compromising a more optimum solution for the majority of people. I have posted several times in the past about a tea party family demonstration against Obama Care about 3 years ago. They owed the hospital over $90,000 for his care since only the wife had insurance. They had decided they couldn't afford to add him to her insurance. So instead of holding to their beliefs they were essentially asking me to pay for his hospital care.
Flippant?
 
Last edited:
Not exactly. Some will not change their mind when they have a health problem and trust in God. So, should we accomidate them by compromising a more optimum solution for the majority of people. I have posted several times in the past about a tea party family demonstration against Obama Care about 3 years ago. They owed the hospital over $90,000 for his care since only the wife had insurance. They had decided they couldn't afford to add him to her insurance. So instead of holding to their beliefs they were essentially asking me to pay for his hospital care.
Flippant?

So you think the solution to them essentially asking you to pay for their healthcare is for the government to FORCE you to pay for their healthcare? :doh
That aside, I do not find UHC being Constitutional. It would require the government to force citizens to purchase healthcare. SCOTUS just ruled they can't do that.
 
Responsibility. Those without healthcare cost the taxpayers a boatload of money annually.
 
So you would not support mandatory Universal healthcare in the United States since the supreme court has ruled the government can't force citizens into commerce according to our Constitution?

The Supreme court ruled that the government can apply a penalty tax to those who do not purchase health insurance, thus upholding the conservatives insurance mandate. I would have preferred the public option, and still believe we will have to make that upgrade eventually as most of the rest of the industrialized world has already done.
 
I hope this is pretty self explanatory. What do you think? This'll be multiple choice and I'll include an "other". Give me a sec to get the poll up.
Apparently now it's mandatory. The other three are moot.
 
The Supreme court ruled that the government can apply a penalty tax to those who do not purchase health insurance...

Usually when governments want to disallow a behavior in the society they govern, they pass a law to criminalize it. I suppose that's what has been done in this case, making it illegal to not buy from a company... but so why the different names, e.g. "penalty tax?"
 
Usually when governments want to disallow a behavior in the society they govern, they pass a law to criminalize it. I suppose that's what has been done in this case, making it illegal to not buy from a company... but so why the different names, e.g. "penalty tax?"

See uninsured motorists fee.
 
The Supreme court ruled that the government can apply a penalty tax to those who do not purchase health insurance, thus upholding the conservatives insurance mandate. I would have preferred the public option, and still believe we will have to make that upgrade eventually as most of the rest of the industrialized world has already done.

The first thing they ruled in this case is that the federal government can't force a person into commerce in order to then regulate that commerce. This is how I see UHC.
Also I don't believe the final chapter has been written on the Constitutionality of the tax. More lawsuits are going to follow.
 
More lawsuits are going to follow.

Well do let us know how they turn out! In the meantime, health care reform is the rule of law.
 
As Ema Goldman said
"if they do not offer job or food. TAKE food.

Same goes for HC.
 
Back
Top Bottom