• 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!

Pro-choice and Pro-UHC

Where do you stand on UHC?

  • Total voters
    36
Kandahar said:
The whole purpose of insurance is to share the risk. That means you pay your premiums when you don't need it, you pay your premiums when you do need it, and the insurance pays your bills when you need it.

That whole concept is lost if you start allowing anyone and everyone to jump on board Medicaid whenever they need it without asking them to directly contribute anything when they don't. UHC would be a big improvement over what you are suggesting, because the funding will mostly be derived from customers who pay premiums, instead of from the taxpayers as a whole.
Click to expand...

I edited.


123456789
 
Jerry said:
So, you want UHC, ok. You can have it if you can pay for it, and taxing the rich has proven not to be the way. The government has to get a job and produce something.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you this: Would you be opposed to a public option - open to all citizens and legal residents - that charged a high enough premium to cover its expenses, offered two free checkups per year (and maybe other preventative stuff like mammograms), had a deductible of $1500-3000 per year, and covered 100% of expenses beyond that? This sort of plan seems ideal to me. It controls costs by making doctors compete with each other on price, it's easy to understand, it encourages prevention, it's revenue-neutral, and it covers everyone who wants it.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Let me ask you this: Would you be opposed to a public option - open to all citizens and legal residents - that charged a high enough premium to cover its expenses, offered two free checkups per year (and maybe other preventative stuff like mammograms), had a deductible of $1500-3000 per year, and covered 100% of expenses beyond that?

This sort of plan seems ideal to me. It controls costs, it's simple, it encourages prevention, it's revenue-neutral, and it covers everyone who wants it..
Click to expand...

That is NOT what Obama is proposing.
 
Look I'll compromise on all kinds of things. You want gay-marriage? Fine. Make divorce harder to get in the same bill and I'll picket with you.

You want abortion? Fine. Mandate parental consent for minors unless parental rights are revoked and I'll support it.

Sex-ed in the school? Sure, right after gun-safety.

Want UHC? Great. Allow drilling in ANWAR, Gulf Coast, and increase the terrifs for foreign entities to pay for it, then show me the dotted line.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Look I'll compromise on all kinds of things. You want gay-marriage? Fine. Make divorce harder to get in the same bill and I'll picket with you.

You want abortion? Fine. Mandate parental consent for minors unless parental rights are revoked and I'll support it.

Sex-ed in the school? Sure, right after gun-safety.

Want UHC? Great. Allow drilling in ANWAR, Gulf Coast, and increase the terrifs for foreign entities to pay for it, then show me the dotted line.
Click to expand...

UHC has absolutely nothing to do with any of those "compromises" you listed. I don't have a problem with oil drilling (and I have a very big problem with tariffs) but it's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
 
Kandahar said:
UHC has absolutely nothing to do with any of those "compromises" you listed. I don't have a problem with oil drilling (and I have a very big problem with tariffs) but it's completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Click to expand...

You're saying that paying for UHC is irrelevant to UHC.

I hope one day you lefties realize that you need to be able to pay for what you want to buy.

I showed you how oil is relevant and necessary to UHC, and you're choosing ignorance. So be it.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
You're saying that paying for UHC is irrelevant to UHC.

I hope one day you lefties realize that you need to be able to pay for what you want to buy.
Click to expand...

Obviously you missed the part where I specifically said that it should be paid for with insurance premiums, like any other insurance. It's strange that an amazing debater like yourself would miss such an important point. ;)
 
P/N said:
I'm just curious how many people are pro-choice and support UHC. I can't honestly see how someone can say "It's my body, it's my choice" and "It's between me and my doctor" when it comes to abortion, but can allow the government to interfere when it comes to UHC. Because if UHC passes, it will no longer be "your choice", it will be the "government's choice" in regards to what they want to pay for. It will no longer be a choice that you and your doctor make because the bureaucracy of government is now the ultimate voice in the matter.
Click to expand...
You proceed from a false assumption.
See, "choice" only matters when liberals like the choice you want to make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom