• 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!

Is healthcare a right?

Is access to healthcare a right?

  • Yes healthcare is a right

    Votes: 37 44.6%

  • No healthcare is not a right

    Votes: 46 55.4%
  • Total voters
    83
  • Poll closed .
Russell797 said:
It's all a matter of interpretation...that's why we have judges...but even they are not devoid of bias, able to interpret the meaning objectively....because the writings are ambiguous as to intent. If that were not so, every decision would be unanimous.
Click to expand...

It is not ambiguous. It is very clear and well defined. The ambiguity only comes in when people try to read in what they want it to mean.

And yes, my plan was a comprehensive one, as should be all such plans...I paid zero in deductibles. What good is low cost insurance if it doesn't cover what you end up needing? If the plan you have does not cover you, but you have the medical treatment anyway, say in a triage situation....others end up paying it for you. That needs to stop if we allow you to opt for a low cost plan which ends up being insufficient for your needs. Can't pay on the spot? Though.
Click to expand...

Follow with me. Let's say I have a $1 million hospital stay for a car accident. Assuming my auto insurance doesn't have coverage (which it does) let's compare the costs of both plans for one year.

Full Coverage:

$20 copay
$150 copay emergency room
$3,000 deductible
10% copay after $3,000

I would pay $150 for the emergency room and then $2,850 for the hospital stay plus $99,700 for the stay unless it had an out of pocket maximum, then I'd pay that. My current OOP is $15,000. So, I'd pay $15,000 plus (at pre ACA rates) $330 over 12 months or $3,960 for my premiums. A grand total of $18,960.

Catastrophic Coverage:

$5,000 deductible
0 Copay after $5,000
Premiums $100 over 12 months or $1,200
Grand total $6,200

This is the con that insurance companies have been winning and won big with the ACA. We were all forced into bad insurance. We have been convinced that bad insurance is the only insurance and it must be provided by someone else. Well guess what, if I buy your insurance and you buy mine we both end up paying more...but it's free? Right?

Good insurance covers the big ticket items. Most catastrophic insurance had no copay after the deductible was met and was less than 1/3 of the premium for full. But people saw that $5,000 (or whatever) tag and thought they'd go bankrupt. So they paid more than $5,000 a year for more coverage. There is no way a full plan is ever cheaper than catastrophic. It just never happens. Not before the ACA.
 
Cephus said:
And who do you think has to provide that food to you?
Click to expand...

That's what food shelves and food stamps are for.

I know you are pro-choice, but there are many here who are pro-life when it comes to abortion, yet do not believe in the right to things like food and healthcare. I'd like to know how that is justified. How do you have a right to life, and no right to the things that make life possible?
 
rocket88 said:
That's what food shelves and food stamps are for.

I know you are pro-choice, but there are many here who are pro-life when it comes to abortion, yet do not believe in the right to things like food and healthcare. I'd like to know how that is justified. How do you have a right to life, and no right to the things that make life possible?
Click to expand...

Meaning you expect the taxpayer to pony up the bill. And where do you get the idea that I think anyone has an inherent right to life? I think the whole idea is stupid.
 
Cephus said:
Meaning you expect the taxpayer to pony up the bill. And where do you get the idea that I think anyone has an inherent right to life? I think the whole idea is stupid.
Click to expand...

Again, the idea of a right to life comes from the right, including many times from the poster to whom I replied. If you believe in that right, then clearly a person has the right to stay alive. Which requires food.
 
ksu_aviator said:
It is not ambiguous. It is very clear and well defined. The ambiguity only comes in when people try to read in what they want it to mean.



Follow with me. Let's say I have a $1 million hospital stay for a car accident. Assuming my auto insurance doesn't have coverage (which it does) let's compare the costs of both plans for one year.

Full Coverage:

$20 copay
$150 copay emergency room
$3,000 deductible
10% copay after $3,000

I would pay $150 for the emergency room and then $2,850 for the hospital stay plus $99,700 for the stay unless it had an out of pocket maximum, then I'd pay that. My current OOP is $15,000. So, I'd pay $15,000 plus (at pre ACA rates) $330 over 12 months or $3,960 for my premiums. A grand total of $18,960.

Catastrophic Coverage:

$5,000 deductible
0 Copay after $5,000
Premiums $100 over 12 months or $1,200
Grand total $6,200

This is the con that insurance companies have been winning and won big with the ACA. We were all forced into bad insurance. We have been convinced that bad insurance is the only insurance and it must be provided by someone else. Well guess what, if I buy your insurance and you buy mine we both end up paying more...but it's free? Right?

Good insurance covers the big ticket items. Most catastrophic insurance had no copay after the deductible was met and was less than 1/3 of the premium for full. But people saw that $5,000 (or whatever) tag and thought they'd go bankrupt. So they paid more than $5,000 a year for more coverage. There is no way a full plan is ever cheaper than catastrophic. It just never happens. Not before the ACA.
Click to expand...

You are treating health insurance as if it is meant to pay only for situations such as you described. That's not what I have health insurance for and not what it is needed for....I have it for routine medical screening. I have it to pay for blood work, MRI, preventative care, specialists, hospital procedures, colonoscopy ,medications etc....Those are the medical issues that EVERYONE must have access to in a manner made affordable to the common person....I get an annual physical...people without insurance for the most part do not and can not. Many of them are ticking time bombs. Paying for that stuff out of pocket is beyond the means of people living paycheck to paycheck so they go without absent insurance.
 
Cephus said:
Meaning you expect the taxpayer to pony up the bill. And where do you get the idea that I think anyone has an inherent right to life? I think the whole idea is stupid.
Click to expand...

For me, health care is not a right...life is not a right...I don't care what any constitution says....However we cherish life and everyone must be as healthy as technologically possible if they are to be reasonably happy and productive. We as a society share that understanding I would hope. Society should then collectively support the effort to ensure that we all live as healthy as possible...

Human civilization is by definition the united effort of all to strengthen our likelihood for success. We collectively support the military for example for obvious reasons. We collectively support our transportation networks, our agricultural productivity, our water supplies, electricity etc.....Noting is more important than a persons health...we should collectively support that as well.
 
Russell797 said:
You can be free up until the point where your actions affect me...People who do not carry insurance drive the cost up for those of us who do. That's why I say you can be free to have any crap plan or no plan....just don't allow my cost to go up because of your lack of coverage when you seek medical care...Pay for it out of pocket then and there or no service...Even if you are bleeding to death or suffer a heart attack. Get cancer and I hope you are very, very rich. Agree?
Click to expand...

Yes! But again, I suspect youll never actually let me do that. Youre just saying that because you know we will never change our country to get the federal govt out of state and individual healthcare.
 
jonny5 said:
Yes! But again, I suspect youll never actually let me do that. Youre just saying that because you know we will never change our country to get the federal govt out of state and individual healthcare.
Click to expand...

Actually I am fine with the states doing their own thing. My state of Mass. did so before the ACA....Just don't demand that my state contribute to solving some other state's dire need when it arises....it works both ways you know.
 
rocket88 said:
Again, the idea of a right to life comes from the right, including many times from the poster to whom I replied. If you believe in that right, then clearly a person has the right to stay alive. Which requires food.
Click to expand...

Food, shelter, medicine, the list goes on and on and on and nobody wants to pay for any of it. That leads only to societal and economic downfall.
 
I stated..."I figure good health is beneficial to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if a government is based on those values, they should see to a healthy society...all of society should be the concern."

Fenton said:
" Good Health " is up to the individual
Click to expand...

I submit we should try for "Good" and if someone wants "Better" they have that right to pay for it...when you got none, some might be good...just a matter of perspective...what we've got now is a joke...and as Trump said, what the House presented to great fanfare and victory photo op was mean...so what's the plan?

Trump is apparently open to signing anything because he doesn't care and didn't understand that it was so complicated...he just wants a "win"...I had to chuckle when he signed the EO...which he almost walked out without signing after he got done with his grandiosity...he turned the foible into a joke and commented he would sign it because it didn't cost anything...no...just potential lives...what a dipstick.
 
Russell797 said:
Actually I am fine with the states doing their own thing. My state of Mass. did so before the ACA....Just don't demand that my state contribute to solving some other state's dire need when it arises....it works both ways you know.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that like I would. What has given you any indication that I expect you to pay for my needs beyond what weve agreed to in the constitution?
 
jonny5 said:
You keep saying that like I would. What has given you any indication that I expect you to pay for my needs beyond what weve agreed to in the constitution?
Click to expand...

Because that's how the liberal system works. It all falls apart unless they force everyone to take part because if you let the healthy opt out of health insurance and not pay into the system, the unhealthy can't pay the way for all the care they require. The left can't see it any other way.
 
Russell797 said:
You are treating health insurance as if it is meant to pay only for situations such as you described. That's not what I have health insurance for and not what it is needed for....I have it for routine medical screening. I have it to pay for blood work, MRI, preventative care, specialists, hospital procedures, colonoscopy ,medications etc....Those are the medical issues that EVERYONE must have access to in a manner made affordable to the common person....I get an annual physical...people without insurance for the most part do not and can not. Many of them are ticking time bombs. Paying for that stuff out of pocket is beyond the means of people living paycheck to paycheck so they go without absent insurance.
Click to expand...

You get all that for less with a catastrophic plan.

Ok, let's approach this from another angle.

Which is cheaper?

Car A that is bought from a dealer that bought it from broker that paid for the car to be shipped and stored before shipping it to the dealer.

Car B that is bought from the manufacturer and driven out of the factory.

Car B is cheaper and represents how much cheaper it is to buy directly from the doctor. When you buy from the insurance company, the insurance company has to pay people to bill the doctor, people to collect the money, people to create actuary tables to estimate how much you'll spend, supervisors, buildings, electricity and so on. The doctor also has to pay people to bill the insurance company, collect the checks and so on. But, if you pay cash you pay the Doctor, the nurse and the receptionist. It is a no brainer. Plus, the numbers above showed you can't possibly pay more with catastrophic. It would never happen....NEVER!
 
Russell797 said:
You are treating health insurance as if it is meant to pay only for situations such as you described. That's not what I have health insurance for and not what it is needed for....I have it for routine medical screening. I have it to pay for blood work, MRI, preventative care, specialists, hospital procedures, colonoscopy ,medications etc....Those are the medical issues that EVERYONE must have access to in a manner made affordable to the common person....I get an annual physical...people without insurance for the most part do not and can not. Many of them are ticking time bombs. Paying for that stuff out of pocket is beyond the means of people living paycheck to paycheck so they go without absent insurance.
Click to expand...

https://amp.cnn.com/money/2013/06/11/news/economy/cash-only-doctors/index.html

If they get Medicare for all, then you will be seeing more of these pop up.
 
Nap said:
https://amp.cnn.com/money/2013/06/11/news/economy/cash-only-doctors/index.html

If they get Medicare for all, then you will be seeing more of these pop up.
Click to expand...

Far to many would be consumers of health care would be left out in the cold with that scenario. We need to look at this from the perspective of the people in need of service...All 340,000,000 of us in this country. That need is enormous and hugely expensive. What about prescription medications without adequate insurance?

What those doctors are doing applies to one aspect of health care only. It may work for them, but not for the system....Look at the doctor in the article...went from several thousand patients to just a few hundred...That's just pushing the problem off on others.
 
Cephus said:
Because that's how the liberal system works. It all falls apart unless they force everyone to take part because if you let the healthy opt out of health insurance and not pay into the system, the unhealthy can't pay the way for all the care they require. The left can't see it any other way.
Click to expand...

Do you think wealthy and middle class liberals would also opt out?
 
Russell797 said:
Far to many would be consumers of health care would be left out in the cold with that scenario. We need to look at this from the perspective of the people in need of service...All 340,000,000 of us in this country. That need is enormous and hugely expensive. What about prescription medications without adequate insurance?

What those doctors are doing applies to one aspect of health care only. It may work for them, but not for the system....Look at the doctor in the article...went from several thousand patients to just a few hundred...That's just pushing the problem off on others.
Click to expand...

So with more doctors refusing to accept Medicare and some refusing insurance altogether, what would your solution be? Force the doctors to provide service?
 
Nap said:
So with more doctors refusing to accept Medicare and some refusing insurance altogether, what would your solution be? Force the doctors to provide service?
Click to expand...

They would no refuse to accept Medicare if it was the only payer source
 
jonny5 said:
Do you think wealthy and middle class liberals would also opt out?
Click to expand...

Given a choice and no need to virtue signal, I'm sure a lot would.
 
Russell797 said:
Are Canadian, British, French etc. citizens slaves of their governments because they enjoy universal health care? I don't think so.

I had the right insurance plan...It's was COBRA carried over from my last employer during early retirement. It paid ALL my medical bills, which were fairly substantial. I also had the peace of mind that if something serious happened I was covered.

You have you ideology which guides your every perception of the world...Mine is different. You are a slave to the written word, given a particular interpretation...I am a pragmatist who seeks the best possible way to meet a desired end....but we can't even agree to the desired end...You are like the captain who must go down with the ship....come hell or high water your ideology reins supreme over all else. We should break this country up into two parts, because we are not at all compatible.
Click to expand...

If you loose your home and your family suffers because you became very ill, is that really freedom? And if that is what you see as Freedom, why would you stand in the way of other peoples freedom to not suffer for your ideals?
 
Nap said:
So with more doctors refusing to accept Medicare and some refusing insurance altogether, what would your solution be? Force the doctors to provide service?
Click to expand...

What do they do in every other country in the world? They don't seem to have this problem you envision. It's not like we have to reinvent the wheel...Other countries have universal health care and enjoy better health than does the self proclaimed great U.S. of A.
 
Rich123 said:
If you loose your home and your family suffers because you became very ill, is that really freedom? And if that is what you see as Freedom, why would you stand in the way of other peoples freedom to not suffer for your ideals?
Click to expand...

I want universal health care, just like the majority of other advanced countries in the world have..Maybe you have misunderstood my position?
 
jonny5 said:
Do you think wealthy and middle class liberals would also opt out?
Click to expand...

They wouldn't and couldn't if the cost of health care were built into the tax structure rather than being enticed to purchase a commercial health insurance plan. Insurance only works when the many pay for the few...And smart people regardless of political persuasion will be certain to either be self insurable, purchase an insurance plan or be covered by the government....no person should be left out as is the case in this backward country when it comes to health care.
 
Russell797 said:
What do they do in every other country in the world? They don't seem to have this problem you envision. It's not like we have to reinvent the wheel...Other countries have universal health care and enjoy better health than does the self proclaimed great U.S. of A.
Click to expand...

Type NHS doctor shortage, there are plenty of articles on the issue.

Here is one:
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-35667939

If Doctors are already sick of dealing with all the red tape involved with insurances and Medicare in the US causing some to move to cash only, it doesn't take much of a logical leap to understand that by adding to it will cause more to move away from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom