• 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
Phoenix said:
Agreed. Every social program in the country is going broke. Yet we strive to add more to the mix? After 2014 we will be wondering where we are going to get the money to pay for all the healthcare that is being provided. Wonder if China is going to be open for loans. Maybe Russia?
Click to expand...

Weve been paying for all the healthcare right along...sigh...why wont you people acknowledge that....you think all the people with no insurance going to ERs with gunshot wounds and in car accidents and needing super expensive treatment and surgeries...is FREE ? do you think thats all just free...do you think illegal immigrants coming across the border that get sick or get a traumatic injury and get treated and surgery is FREE ?? weve been paying for it all along as taxpayers...now it evens the playing field...people that can afford to pay need to have insurance....
 
RadicalModerate said:
Tort reform and....that's about it, as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

Tort reform is all we need.

We will make it illegal to file a lawsuit against a doctor or any other medical professional. We will also make it illegal to file a lawsuit against a hospital or medical facility. Then healthcare costs will immediately plummet.
 
lpast said:
Weve been paying for all the healthcare right along...sigh...why wont you people acknowledge that....you think all the people with no insurance going to ERs with gunshot wounds and in car accidents and needing super expensive treatment and surgeries...is FREE ? do you think thats all just free...do you think illegal immigrants coming across the border that get sick or get a traumatic injury and get treated and surgery is FREE ?? weve been paying for it all along as taxpayers...now it evens the playing field...people that can afford to pay need to have insurance....
Click to expand...

because it's untrue. If we were providing healthcare for all these people previously we wouldn't need the law. Part of the major justification for this law is people don't have insurance and aren't getting healthcare. Logically that means we will be providing MORE healthcare to MORE people and it will cost MORE money. No?
 
johnny_rebson said:
Tort reform is all we need.

We will make it illegal to file a lawsuit against a doctor or any other medical professional. We will also make it illegal to file a lawsuit against a hospital or medical facility. Then healthcare costs will immediately plummet.
Click to expand...

Tort reform fixing healthcare is a pipe dream. People should be able to sue a bad doctor if he maims them for life.
 
Phoenix said:
The Preamble isn't justification for any law. As far as the Constitutionality of the law, Nearly as many Justices ruled it unconstitutional as ruled it constitutional. And the at least one of the majority said it was in fact unconstitutional as written. I would bet money the final chapter isn't written by the Supreme Court on this one. Now, however the SCOTUS can't accept another case until someone has paid the tax.
This thread however asks is it a right privilege or responsibility, not if it's Constitutional. My point is how do you provide a "right" to one person (a patient) if it can ONLY be provide by a second person (a doctor)? What if the doctor refuses?
Click to expand...

The Preamble is the purpose of the Constitution. If you are confused about how UHC, just ask every other industrialized nation on the planet. We are the last remaining hold out.
 
Catawba said:
The Preamble is the purpose of the Constitution. If you are confused about how UHC, just ask every other industrialized nation on the planet. We are the last remaining hold out.
Click to expand...

We also have a different system of laws than every other industrialized nation in the world. So I will ask again, How do you provide a "right" to one person (a patient) if it can ONLY be provide by a second person (a doctor)? What if the doctor refuses?

Would you be as amicable to requiring gun ownership and collecting "penalties" from people who chose not to own guns?
 
Phoenix said:
We also have a different system of laws than every other industrialized nation in the world. So I will ask again, How do you provide a "right" to one person (a patient) if it can ONLY be provide by a second person (a doctor)? What if the doctor refuses?
Click to expand...

We have no laws that prevent UHC. And, as long as doctors are paid, they have no problem providing services, just as they do in every other industrialized country on the planet.
 
Catawba said:
We have no laws that prevent UHC.
Click to expand...
I would argue that the 10th amendment prohibits UHC.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
I don't remember heath care being as enumerated power.

Catawba said:
And, as long as doctors are paid, they have no problem providing services, just as they do in every other industrialized country on the planet.
Click to expand...

Whether they will do it or not is not at issue. The question is; Can we definitively provide a right to a person if it has to be provided by another person. The answer is NO. We can decide we are going to devise a system to allow people to get healthcare, that however is completely dependent on the willingness of another person to provide that service (whether for money or otherwise). One person's "right" to healthcare can't supercede another's right to their own actions. A right to healthcare would require enslaving the healthcare professional to provide it. This is not a popular choice because it would ultimately lead to less doctors and horrible healthcare so the alternative is to enslave everyone else the amount of their labor required to pay for the UHC.
 
Catawba said:
We have no laws that prevent UHC. And, as long as doctors are paid, they have no problem providing services, just as they do in every other industrialized country on the planet.
Click to expand...

I think you are mistaken. Why don't you ask a doctor?

Obamacare has 83 percent of doctor

I deal with doctors everyday. Based on my conversations with them, while they have compassion for the uninsured, they feel that this particular "remedy" (UHC) will do more harm that good. They claim that, as it is, their reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid generally don't even break even against their expenses for those patients. Additionally they state that UHC, leaving no room for competition, will leave little in the way of discretion for the physicians and little incentive for quaity care and customer service.
 
Phoenix said:
I would argue that the 10th amendment prohibits UHC.


I don't remember heath care being as enumerated power.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be. See the Supreme Court decisions that were upheld for SS, Medicare, and the Republican insurance mandate.


The question is; Can we definitively provide a right to a person if it has to be provided by another person.
Click to expand...

See the Supreme Court decisions that were upheld for SS, Medicare, and the Republican insurance mandate.
 
kamikaze483 said:
I think you are mistaken. Why don't you ask a doctor?

Obamacare has 83 percent of doctor

I deal with doctors everyday. Based on my conversations with them, while they have compassion for the uninsured, they feel that this particular "remedy" (UHC) will do more harm that good. They claim that, as it is, their reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid generally don't even break even against their expenses for those patients. Additionally they state that UHC, leaving no room for competition, will leave little in the way of discretion for the physicians and little incentive for quaity care and customer service.
Click to expand...

If the conservative's insurance mandate doesn't work out, we can always go back to a single payer as we should have gone with originally instead of compromising with the the conservatives for their insurance mandate.
 
Single payer would have never passed.
 
Aberration said:
Single payer would have never passed.
Click to expand...

It will eventually, as it is the only realistic way to address the highest health care cost in the world. The conservative's insurance mandate is only a bandaid.
 
Catawba said:
The rule of law is good enough for me.
Click to expand...

So you concede that X, Y and Z are perhaps not "rights" after all, and that's fine with you as long as we write laws that entitle people to X, Y and Z anyway?
 
Neomalthusian said:
So you concede that X, Y and Z are perhaps not "rights" after all, and that's fine with you as long as we write laws that entitle people to X, Y and Z anyway?
Click to expand...


What I am fine with, is that under our Constitution, it is the Supreme Court that was specified as the body that decides what is Constitutional and what is not, just as they have with SS, Medicare, and the conservative's insurance mandate.
 
Catawba said:
What I am fine with, is that under our Constitution, it is the Supreme Court that was specified as the body that decides what is Constitutional and what is not, just as they have with SS, Medicare, and the conservative's insurance mandate.
Click to expand...

Uhmm what about Citizens united?
 
Catawba said:
The rule of law is good enough for me.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Phoenix said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes, we haven't accomidated those whose beliefs instruct them not to use 'health care', but trust in God to do the right thing. (They wouldn't go running to the hospital at the last minute would they?)
 
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...
Until healthcare becomes affordable, it should be an option.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Yes, we haven't accomidated those whose beliefs instruct them not to use 'health care', but trust in God to do the right thing. (They wouldn't go running to the hospital at the last minute would they?)
Click to expand...

I assume you are in a flippant way saying that everyone needs healthcare. Even so, we can be forced into it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom