• 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!

How satisfied are you with your health insurance provider?

How satisfied are you with your current health insurance provider?

  • Total voters
    54
SouthernDemocrat said:
It isn't that is my point. Very few people are willing to live in a society where someone can be denied life saving care in an emergency room simply because they don't have the ability to pay for it.
Click to expand...
This point has been countered. You may repeat it all you want, but it has been addressed. It was found wanting.

This well "life is tough" crap that Goobieman is spouting is a fantasy.
Click to expand...
On the contrary -- it -is- reality.

Unlness, of course, tell me how, exactly, someone's right to health care trumps the right of those that provide said health care to get paid, or is so sufficienrly strong to force others to pay said providers.

No one with a conscience is going to deny life saving care to someone in an emergency room if they are uninsured.
Click to expand...
If your conscience dictates this, then feel free to take care of them yourself.
On what grounds do you presume that your conscience carries enough weight to make that same decision for others?
 
Bad luck sucks. Welcome to the world.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should just give up on society, since society has an intrinsic need to address the "bad luck" (statistical inevitabilities) you are so dismissive of.
 
Morality Games said:
Maybe you should just give up on society, since society has an intrinsic need to address the "bad luck" (statistical inevitabilities) you are so dismissive of.
Click to expand...
An "intrinsic need"?
Show this to be true.
And then show how that "intrinsic need" can --only-- be met by forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights.
 
Joe1991 said:
that $100 a month plan is for catastrophic HC, which usually doesn't pay a dime until you hit $5k in medical expenses in a year. So a low income person is actually better off not buying HC at all and using that $1200 to try and pay for normal doc visits and prescriptions.

The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close to $13,000 a year, well over $1,000 a month.

NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs
Click to expand...

Is anyone here paying $400+ for health insurance a month for just themselves? What's state , age, and do you have any pre-existing conditions which would explain such a high rate?
 
Goobieman said:
Then your 'problem' does not exist -- people so inclined have a means to keep those w/o health insurance from dying on the street.
Click to expand...

See once again, that thing called reality comes up. We have people that as their conscience dictates give to charity. Yet, still, the reality is that people without insurance still show up in emergency rooms needing life saving care and would die in front of the hospital if they did not get it. Thus, they get it. Reality, deal with it.

Now, were you going to tell me how, exactly, someone's right to healt care trumps the right of those that provide said health care to get paid, or is so sufficienrly strong to force others to pay said providers?

Or were you going to continue to, evade, deflect and obfuscate?

'cuz it seems to me that if you had a good, solid, sound answer, you'd take the question head on.
Click to expand...
I articulated that right here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/54669-health-care-us-right-3.html#post1058201968

In summary though, there are basically 3 categories of rights:

1. Rights that are derived from the principle of self ownership. These would be rights such as property rights, freedom of expression and so on.

2. Rights that are derived from social contract. These would be positive rights such the right to vote and to petitions ones government.

3. Rights that are derived from humanitarian law. These are unique in that they can compel action by others. For example, if a child shows up at your doorstep bleeding to death, they have a right to your assistance and thus you are legally obligated to try and help them and attempt to get emergency assistance. If someone shows up at an emergency room in need of life saving care, the emergency room is obligated to treat them even if they cannot pay.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Yes... because those few pro-lifers that have killed abortionists are representative of the pro-life side as a whole, just like the perpetrators of 9-11 are representative of Islam as a whole.
:doh
Click to expand...

Does it matter? I can go on to generalize pro-lifers are just insensitive and inhumane to the issues women face, such as rape victims, child pregnancies etc. Thats a generalization that pretty much accounts for the majority of the pro-life side. Also, the pro-life side consists of a large proportion of men who are pro-life for the sake of feeling in control over womens bodies, and also consist of people ignorant to the definition of a Human being. But hey.
 
kaya'08 said:
Does it matter?
Click to expand...
Only if you want people to take you seriously.
Using the extreme to generalize the whole is just silly.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
See once again, that thing called reality comes up. We have people that as their conscience dictates give to charity. Yet, still, the reality is that people without insurance still show up in emergency rooms needing life saving care and would die in front of the hospital if they did not get it. Thus, they get it. Reality, deal with it.
Click to expand...
The reality is that It doesnt matter how many times you repeat this, it has been addressed: if you are so inclined to do so, you have every right to choose to help these people.

In summary though, there are basically 3 categories of rights:
1. Rights that are derived from the principle of self ownership. These would be rights such as property rights, freedom of expression and so on.
Click to expand...
And the right to be compensated for the goods and services you provide. Glad you agree.

2. Rights that are derived from social contract. These would be positive rights such the right to vote and to petitions ones government.
Click to expand...
Yes -- political rights you have because the structure of government provides/requies them. Voting, due process, jury trial, etc, exist because there is a government that necessitates them.

3. Rights that are derived from humanitarian law. These are unique in that they can compel action by others.
Click to expand...
These are not rights, these are privileges, granted by law.

Rights are self-actuated actions you can take do not impose on the rights of others. As such, you do NOT have the right to expect others to provide you with the means to exercise your rights, such as health care providers to present goods/services w/o compensation.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
I don't accept your brazenly childish terms. ("Pro-death," indeed.)

Grow up. Take off your ideological blinders. See that the world is many shades and not just the black and white of extreme partisanship.
Click to expand...

Goobie is the one that had the radically inconsistent views, nothing ideological about it.
And I asked you to explain the pro-life position if denying poor pregnant women and infants hospital care isn't in effect pro-death.
You failed.
 
Goobieman said:
The reality is that It doesnt matter how many times you repeat this, it has been addressed: if you are so inclined to do so, you have every right to choose to help these people.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many times you bring up charity either. It doesn't change the fact that people show up at emergency rooms without insurance, and the emergency rooms are legally obligated to give them life saving treatment. That is the reality you are unwilling to accept because it would result in, God Forbid, you for once in your life on here having to say, well yeah, that's true.

And the right to be compensated for the goods and services you provide. Glad you agree.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they are compensated for treating the uninsured by passing those costs onto those with the ability to pay.

These are not rights, these are privileges, granted by law.

Rights are self-actuated actions you can take do not impose on the rights of others. As such, you do NOT have the right to expect others to provide you with the means to exercise your rights, such as health care providers to present goods/services w/o compensation.
Click to expand...

Well see that is the problem, the law disagrees with you there. The law states that if I am dropped in front of you bleeding to death, I have a right to your assistance if you have the ability to give it, and if you ignore that right, you can and will be prosecuted. Once again, that pesky thing called "reality" comes up. You know, if actually embraced just a small amount of pragmatism, reality would not be such a problem for you.
 
Satisfied with the usual complaint.
 
Last edited:
Unsatisfied. I have to fight with BCBS way more than I should have to.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes, and they are compensated for treating the uninsured by passing those costs onto those with the ability to pay.
Click to expand...
which is crap.

For people who are too poor to afford insurance and care I am willing to support social services for them. But for people who CAN afford health insurance but for one reason or another CHOOSE not to invest in their health, I have no remorse. They should be saddled with debt for years or not given full treatment. I have no remorse for people who knowingly make poor decisions at the expense of others.

Well see that is the problem, the law disagrees with you there. The law states that if I am dropped in front of you bleeding to death, I have a right to your assistance if you have the ability to give it, and if you ignore that right, you can and will be prosecuted.
Click to expand...
This might be true for hospitals but not for individuals. In fact, because of the many legal problems opened up by negligence, the best thing to do for your own sake is to call 911 and nothing else. If you try to help someone and somehow hurt them or aggravate them, even unintentionally, you can be sued.
 
Joe1991 said:
Goobie is the one that had the radically inconsistent views, nothing ideological about it.
Click to expand...

No. The ideological parts are your loaded, faulty definitions attempting to show an inconsistency which isn't there.

(Though I fully acknowledge that you're so twisted up in ideological blindness that you may actually think your definitions are valid. But, refer to the part of my post about honest observers.)


And I asked you to explain the pro-life position if denying poor pregnant women and infants hospital care isn't in effect pro-death.
Click to expand...

And I told you your terminology was flawed and illustrated why with a counter-example (which you left out when you quoted me).



You failed.
Click to expand...

There was no way to fail, because the challenge as presented was faulty.
 
scourge99 said:
which is crap.

For people who are too poor to afford insurance and care I am willing to support social services for them. But for people who CAN afford health insurance but for one reason or another CHOOSE not to invest in their health, I have no remorse. They should be saddled with debt for years or not given full treatment. I have no remorse for people who knowingly make poor decisions at the expense of others.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. It's just like I say, if someone shows up at the emergency room in need of life saving treatment, they will get it regardless of whether they have insurance or not. The cost for their treatment just gets passed on to everyone else.

This might be true for hospitals but not for individuals. In fact, because of the many legal problems opened up by negligence, the best thing to do for your own sake is to call 911 and nothing else. If you try to help someone and somehow hurt them or aggravate them, even unintentionally, you can be sued.
Click to expand...

That is a good point. However, my point was that you are legally obligated to do something, as in contact 911, you can't just do nothing though.
 
Harshaw said:
No. The ideological parts are your loaded, faulty definitions attempting to show an inconsistency which isn't there.

There was no way to fail, because the challenge as presented was faulty.
Click to expand...

I simply asked you to explain the pro-life position, given the circumstances, you never did. fail
 
Last edited:
I have "Medicare,Part B", whose premiums are extracted from my social security.
The cost is about $1,100 -$1,200, annually.
This covers a little, but none of orthodontics nor optics..
We do need a better, simpler system...
Back in the late 80s, The Blue Cross/Blue Shield "Cobra" would have cost, as I recall, $600 per month. This expense could have bankrupted me.
I said NO!
So, am I satisfied ?
Hell no!
 
I'm unsatisfied because my premiums keep rising & my coverage keep dropping. Pretty soon, the HC industry will just be more honest & show up at your door...with a gun....& just rob you like a man!;)
 
I'm covered by the UK's National Health Service, and I'm very satisfied with the care I receive. I'd like the NHS to standardise access to various tests and treatments over different areas so one isn't waiting 3 before being put forward for a test in one district, and being put forward immediately in another, and I'd to see more access to community-based mental health care, but otherwise I've no complaints.
 
Anima said:
I'm covered by the UK's National Health Service, and I'm very satisfied with the care I receive. I'd like the NHS to standardise access to various tests and treatments over different areas so one isn't waiting 3 before being put forward for a test in one district, and being put forward immediately in another, and I'd to see more access to community-based mental health care, but otherwise I've no complaints.
Click to expand...

But what about the death panels? How has your experience been with them, have you found them to be fair every time they evaluate your productivity to society?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
But what about the death panels? How has your experience been with them, have you found them to be fair every time they evaluate your productivity to society?
Click to expand...

Well, their recommensation regarding myself and my family (which includes sufferers of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Cardiac Arrest, Parkinson's Disease, Leukemia, Cerebral Palsy, Auto-immune Thyroditis, Asthma, Diabetes, Dyslexia, Lipomatosis and Lung Cancer) appears to be "Let them live, and give them excellent healthcare." Crafty death panels. Crafty. They must be planning something. :2wave:
 
I was, at one point, covered by a private family plan (BUPA UK) but we never used it, so we let it lapse. I couldn't really comment on it any further, since we never really experienced what it was like for care, although the list of non covered pre-existing conditions was bloody huge.
 
winston53660 said:
I had a severe motorcycle wreck when I was in my 30's with out insurance and the financial repercussions almost ruined my life. Suicide was a serious consideration for me because I saw no way out of the hole I was in. It wound up affecting about 8 years of my life.
Click to expand...

You did not have insurance on your motorcycle? And whos fault is that?

Not to sound heartless and cold. I am glad everything worked out. It is just that it would have been covered by your vheicle insurance, not your health insurance.
 
Last edited:
Joe1991 said:
I simply asked you to explain the pro-life position, given the circumstances, you never did. fail
Click to expand...

No, you "simply" wanted me to answer a question filled with your loaded terms. I rejected the premise of the question. It's the fallacy of Complex Question.

HONESTY, dude. You've got a big problem with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom