• 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:
The problem is that the vast majority of Americans regardless of their political persuasion are not unconscionable sociopaths, so leaving the uninsured out to die in the street when they need life saving care is not an option for them.
Click to expand...
Good news -- these people DO have an option in that they can give to charity and/or take care of the uninsured themselves. They have every right to make that choice.

And so, I don't see the problem "with that".

I also dont see how asking the question I asked makes you an unconscionable sociopath. Did you have a specfic asnwer that actually addresses that question, or were you just going to toss out personal attacks?
 
Goobieman said:
I notice that you didnt actually address the question that I said needed to be asked. How about you do that?

But, to answer YOUR questions:
Bad luck sucks. Welcome to the world.
Click to expand...

Typical of the right-wing view:

Love the fetus, hate the child.
 
Goobieman said:
Good news -- these people DO have an option in that they can give to charity and/or take care of the uninsured themselves. They have every right to make that choice.

And so, I don't see the problem "with that".

I also dont see how asking the question I asked makes you an unconscionable sociopath. Did you have a specfic asnwer that actually addresses that question, or were you just going to toss out personal attacks?
Click to expand...

I did answer the question with reality. The REALITY is that people are unwilling due to reasons of conscience to deny life saving treatment to individuals that lack the ability to pay. That is not a liberal issue or a conservative issue, its just that virtually anyone with a conscience is unwilling to deny life saving treatment to someone just because they can't pay for it. Period, the end, that is just the way it is. Moreover, that is always been the way it is. 200 years ago, you get seriously injured and show up at a hospital and they would treat you even if they did not think you would ultimately be able to pay.
 
Harshaw said:
If his answers to all three questions were "Yes," how would there be an inconsistency?
Click to expand...

Are you people for real? :shock:

To be pro-life means that you believe a fetus has right to live no matter what.

Goobie is saying the child has a right to life ...unless mommy is poor.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I did answer the question with reality.
Click to expand...
If that was your answer, then your answer fails miserably.
You may as well have answered "orange" as it would have carried as much weight.

If you want to ACTUALLY address the issue, please let me know.

The REALITY is that people are unwilling due to reasons of conscience to deny life saving treatment to individuals that lack the ability to pay.
Click to expand...
I believe I have addressed this:

these people DO have an option in that they can give to charity and/or take care of the uninsured themselves. They have every right to make that choice.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you think yours is still a relevant point, or how it addresses the issue I brought forth.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Typical Goobieman, dream up some fantasy world to make your point instead of addressing reality.
Click to expand...
Typical SD -- cant address the questions put to him, so he deflects and obfuscates.
 
Joe1991 said:
Goobie is saying the child has a right to life ...unless mommy is poor.
Click to expand...
News for you:
Having the right to live (or to do anything else) in no way means you have the right to have the means to do so provided to you by others.
 
Actually, if you'll spend a few minutes with a pencil, and paper, you'll soon discover that since they proposed system cannot generate new wealth, but only consume it, no net benefit will accrue.

In other words, merely stirring the pot does not increase the volume.

In either of your examples, the general populace would be called upon to pay for the health care of the uninsured. However, in the government run system, I would be more likely by far to consume health services for less than traumatic conditions, therefore consuming public resources that I do not under the current system.

It's all really very simple.
 
Joe1991 said:
Are you people for real? :shock:

To be pro-life means that you believe a fetus has right to live no matter what.
Click to expand...

Are YOU "for real"? That's NOT what it means, and no honest observer of the "pro-life" position (as it is in the mainstream) could come to the conclusion that it is.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
200 years ago, you get seriously injured and show up at a hospital and they would treat you even if they did not think you would ultimately be able to pay.
Click to expand...

And that's different from now, how?
 
Harshaw said:
Are YOU "for real"? That's NOT what it means, and no honest observer of the "pro-life" position (as it is in the mainstream) could come to the conclusion that it is.
Click to expand...

Then pleeeeeeease explain how you can claim to be "pro-life" and be pro-death in the same instance.
 
Joe1991 said:
Then pleeeeeeease explain how you can claim to be "pro-life" and be pro-death in the same instance.
Click to expand...

Because the pro-life argument was invented by winy hypocrites? Nobody remember the killing of that abortionist? Because the "pro-lifers" got pissed?
 
Unsatified. I have virtually never used it, yet my premiums still go-up.
 
scourge99 said:
Unless you have pre-existing conditions then health insurance is likely somewhere around $100 a month. You've got to be in some extreme poverty to not be able to afford that by cutting back on non-necessities
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Your source denies your claim. Only ones paying 100 a month are under 18. National average is 2613 $ a year, or over twice what you claimed. For a family it's 5799 $ a year. Know many families that can afford an extra 6k a year bill?
Click to expand...

My $100 claim was based on personal anecdotal evidence until I found the article. The average is $217 a month. For a family of 3 the price drops to $161 per person per month. Not too far off and still very affordable to anyone working a fulltime job.

This doesn't include deductibles, tax breaks, or special state programs.

Considering the average income in the US is around 50k per year this is very affordable.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
If that was your answer, then your answer fails miserably.
You may as well have answered "orange" as it would have carried as much weight.

If you want to ACTUALLY address the issue, please let me know.


I believe I have addressed this:



Not sure how you think yours is still a relevant point, or how it addresses the issue I brought forth.
Click to expand...

People exercise their option right now to give to charity. That does not change the fact that the vast, vast, majority of people are simply unwilling to deny care to those that need life saving care yet are unable to pay for it.

You can come up with all the fantasy scenarios you want, but it does not change the fact that if someone's kid was hit by a car, and taken to the hospital, that hospital will treat them even if they uninsured and can't pay for it. That is reality.
 
kaya'08 said:
Because the pro-life argument was invented by winy hypocrites? Nobody remember the killing of that abortionist? Because the "pro-lifers" got pissed?
Click to expand...
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
 
Harshaw said:
And that's different from now, how?
Click to expand...

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. This well "life is tough" crap that Goobieman is spouting is a fantasy. No one with a conscience is going to deny life saving care to someone in an emergency room if they are uninsured.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
People exercise their option right now to give to charity.
Click to expand...
Then your 'problem' does not exist -- people so inclined have a means to keep those w/o health insurance from dying on the street.

That does not change the fact that the vast, vast, majority of people are simply unwilling to deny care to those that need life saving care yet are unable to pay for it.
Click to expand...
See above -- they have an option, an avenue along which they may act as their conscious dictates.

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.
 
Joe1991 said:
Then pleeeeeeease explain how you can claim to be "pro-life" and be pro-death in the same instance.
Click to expand...

I don't accept your brazenly childish terms. ("Pro-death," indeed.)

Not that I'm surprised; you ARE one of THE most dishonest, rabidly-partisan people on this board, and considering the talent pool (left AND right), that's an achievement.

But to use your own type of terminology and your own level of debate -- how can "health care" be used to slaughter babies? Huh? Huh?

Grow up. Take off your ideological blinders. See that the world is many shades and not just the black and white of extreme partisanship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom