• 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
I do not consider myself "pro-choice", but as "pro abortion rights". I think the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are euphemisms used by those afraid of the word abortion.
Click to expand...
You're right. Pro-choice should be called "pro-abortion rights" and pro-life should be renamed "pro-human rights" or "pro right to live".
I trust the government more than an insurance company who is focused on profit.
Click to expand...
What makes you believe the government will not be focused on profit? If they don't seek to make a profit, the program will bankrupt itself or become a burden on this country, draining our cash and adding to the national debt.
And the government DOES want money. Hence the 27th amendment. If you honestly think that government cares more for you than themselves then you need to wake up. They are just as greedy and hungry for power and money as corporations. To deny this is playing right into their hands.

I honestly don't understand why people believe that government programs can be successful if they don't actually make any money yet spend trillions. How can such a program be deemed successful?
 
Last edited:
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...

Not neccesarily, no. Abortion is covered by the UK's NHS system, and it's still doctors that grant, arrange, and sign off on the procedure, not government officials or bureaucrats. There's nothing to say that any UHC system put in place in the US couldn't operate likewise.
 
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.
Click to expand...

My pro-choice position is not predicated on "my body, my choice". It is predicated on what I consider best for society-- which is minimizing the number of children born defective, unwanted, or into single parent homes while using the least intrusive policies available. By those criteria, pro-choice is a good policy. Subsidizing pre-natal care and abortion through universal health care is better.

Likewise, my support for universal health care isn't based on government control, it is based on reducing overall medical expenditures and maintaining higher productivity in the workforce. I don't particularly care if people get to choose their own insurer or even their own doctor as long as the system works.
 
Hatuey said:
Now I don't know whether or not they've read the bill but from what I gather there seems to be no mention of abortion in the bill. At all. I mean the way I see it, the government and administrations has a million other social programs in which they could use tax payer money to fund abortions. Why wait for a bill they're gambling so much political money on to have tax payer funded abortions?
Click to expand...
You are so quick to call other people blind but you fail to accept that those other people are actually right. Abortion is not mentioned in the bill. That is Exactly why it will be covered by the bill. The Supreme Court ruled that unless specifically excluded, abortion counts as a "medical procedure". Medical procedures are covered under the current healthcare bill.

@P/N excellent video by the way at the top of the page.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
My pro-choice position is not predicated on "my body, my choice". It is predicated on what I consider best for society-- which is minimizing the number of children born defective, unwanted, or into single parent homes while using the least intrusive policies available. By those criteria, pro-choice is a good policy. Subsidizing pre-natal care and abortion through universal health care is better.

Likewise, my support for universal health care isn't based on government control, it is based on reducing overall medical expenditures and maintaining higher productivity in the workforce. I don't particularly care if people get to choose their own insurer or even their own doctor as long as the system works.
Click to expand...

and how many govt programs are operated better and cheaper than the private sector?
 
Lakryte said:
What makes you believe the government will not be focused on profit? If they don't seek to make a profit, the program will bankrupt itself or become a burden on this country, draining our cash and adding to the national debt.
Click to expand...

You are confusing profit with revenue. Obviously the government needs revenue to operate the program, but it doesn't need a profit. As long as the program breaks even (i.e. they charge enough in premiums/taxes to pay for the health expenditures), it is doing fine.
 
You are confusing profit with revenue. Obviously the government needs revenue to operate the program, but it doesn't need a profit. As long as the program breaks even (i.e. they charge enough in premiums/taxes to pay for the health expenditures), it is doing fine.
Click to expand...
What makes you believe the government will not seek to make a profit?
 
DeeJayH said:
and how many govt programs are operated better and cheaper than the private sector?
Click to expand...

The government is better at many things than the private sector is. Unfortunately, you chose to word your question in such a way that makes answering the question impossible. I could give you some examples of things that government can do more efficiently than the private sector, but I have a feeling you would respond to them all with "There IS no private sector for that." Well, there's a reason for that. Private sectors would be unprofitable.

A few things that government can do better than the private sector: Administer justice. Develop infrastructure. Defend civilians. Provide (but not necessarily administer) health care. Provide (but not necessarily administer) education.

A few things that the private sector can do better than the government:
Allocate capital. Make a profit. Create jobs.
 
Lakryte said:
What makes you believe the government will not seek to make a profit?
Click to expand...

Who is "the government"? Who would the profit go to?

One of the defining characteristics of developed Western governments is that they provide services to the public and collect taxes to pay for them. They are almost never profitable. Usually, they have the opposite problem.

Government programs just need to break even, not profit. The corporate model is not particularly effective for government, since the shareholders and customers are the same people (i.e. the American public). A non-profit organization is a better analogy for the government.
 
Lakryte said:
You are so quick to call other people blind but you fail to accept that those other people are actually right. Abortion is not mentioned in the bill. That is Exactly why it will be covered by the bill. The Supreme Court ruled that unless specifically excluded, abortion counts as a "medical procedure". Medical procedures are covered under the current healthcare bill.

@P/N excellent video by the way at the top of the page.
Click to expand...

So then your absence of evidence does is not the evidence of absence? It's good to know that you can't show how abortion will be publicly funded but yet somehow still manage to claim and be certain that it will be. Medical procedures are covered under MedicAid and yet somehow cosmetic surgery, abortions, dental etc aren't covered. Must have something to do with that Hyde thing.
 
Lakryte said:
You're right. Pro-choice should be called "pro-abortion rights" and pro-life should be renamed "pro-human rights" or "pro right to live".
Click to expand...

I find it amusing that I decry euphemisms in the abortion debate, and you agree, then use euphemisms to describe the side you are on. Stripped of any nicetied, the about is about the right to have an abortion, for or against.
 
DeeJayH said:
and how many govt programs are operated better and cheaper than the private sector?
Click to expand...

Depends how you define better and cheaper. Better and cheaper for people who use it? I'd argue the current road system is better as a public good rather than a private good. If all of our road systems were privately run, toll systems with no standardization, the cost of business and cost of goods to consumers would be massive, resulting in on a societal basis, a worse and more expensive program.

The Energy Star government program has to my knowledge worked exceedingly well.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
I'm just curious how many people are pro-choice and support private health care. 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 a private corporation to interfere when it comes to health care. Because if private health care passes, it will no longer be "your choice", it will be the "the private corporation'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 the corporation is now the ultimate voice in the matter.
Click to expand...

The difference being the private company will make decisions based on it's costumer's demands, whereas the government will make decisions based on what will get the politician re-elected.

I'll trust the private businessman over any politician, any day. Also, if I don't like my private coverage i can get a new private carrier...I can not, however, get a new government.
 
Jerry said:
The difference being the private company will make decisions based on it's costumer's demands, whereas the government will make decisions based on what will get the politician re-elected.
Click to expand...

This is false. A private company will make decisions based on a profit motive.
 
Redress said:
This is false. A private company will make decisions based on a profit motive.
Click to expand...

Right, exactly.

Go take a basic econ class and discover who gives the company that profit and you might understand.

Private: profit to shareholders.
Public: Power over your personal life.

I support the profit motive any day.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Right, exactly.

Go take a basic econ class and discover who gives the company that profit and you might understand.
Click to expand...

Companies profit from their customers, but that is not at all the same thing as doing what your customers want because it increases your profits the most. Typically, health insurers do not compete over who can offer the best service at the lowest price. They compete over who can cut costs the most by screwing over the most people.
 
Jerry said:
Right, exactly.

Go take a basic econ class and discover who gives the company that profit and you might understand.

Private: profit to shareholders.
Public: Power over your personal life.

I support the profit motive any day.
Click to expand...

Except that it's not ideal to have some one making health care decisions based on a profit motive. At least the government has to make an attempt to appear like they care about us.
 
Redress said:
Except that it's not ideal to have some one making health care decisions based on a profit motive. At least the government has to make an attempt to appear like they care about us.
Click to expand...

Yes, rationed care just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!

:roll:
 
P/N said:
Yes, rationed care just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!

:roll:
Click to expand...

You mean like we all have now? The only difference between a public option and private insurance is who decides what is covered.
 
Redress said:
You mean like we all have now? The only difference between a public option and private insurance is who decides what is covered.
Click to expand...

And I have a choice with the private option, but not with the public one.

The key to fixing this mess is to de-regulate the private insurance industry. For example, I work in Mississippi, but live in Alabama. I have to have insurance in MS. Fortunately for me, I have Blue Cross and AL accepts BCBSMS, but this is not the case in many other states. Tort reform and loosening the reigns on states accepting insurance from other states is the key here, not the government takeover of the HC industry.
 
P/N said:
And I have a choice with the private option, but not with the public one.
Click to expand...

Then you are fortunate that you are not sick. If you had a major illness, you'd be stuck with your current plan. If you could even find an alternative plan that was willing to cover your preexisting conditions, it would cost a fortune.

P/N said:
The key to fixing this mess is to de-regulate the private insurance industry. For example, I work in Mississippi, but live in Alabama. I have to have insurance in MS. Fortunately for me, I have Blue Cross and AL accepts BCBSMS, but this is not the case in many other states. Tort reform and loosening the reigns on states accepting insurance from other states is the key here, not the government takeover of the HC industry.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any states that tell specific health insurers they can't do business there. Generally the problem lies more with hospitals and the insurers themselves being unable to come to an agreement.

Tort reform is all well and good, but it has nothing to do with what you are talking about here.
 
Redress said:
Except that it's not ideal to have some one making health care decisions based on a profit motive. At least the government has to make an attempt to appear like they care about us.
Click to expand...

If you don't like either option, you can follow my avatar's advice and get only catastrophic coverage while self-insuring the rest.

Problem solved.
 
Jerry said:
If you don't like either option, you can follow my avatar's advice and get only catastrophic coverage while self-insuring the rest.
Click to expand...

...if you aren't already sick and/or old, and have enough cash on hand to self-insure most major-but-less-than-catastrophic conditions.
 
Kandahar said:
...if you aren't already sick and/or old, and have enough cash on hand to self-insure most major-but-less-than-catastrophic conditions.
Click to expand...

We already have Medicaid/care for that.

We don't need anything more than we already have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom