• 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!

Healthcare mandatory?

Should healthcare insurance be mandatory for everyone?

  • Yes. Explain please.

    Votes: 11 31.4%
  • No. Explain please.

    Votes: 24 68.6%

  • Total voters
    35
For me mandating that everyone have HC insurance is nothing short of taxing or making a person pay to live. If you don't have insurance you get a fine via the courts. What happens if you don't pay that fine? You go to jail. That is putting someone in jail for just living.

There does not necessarily have to be jail time for that. What's your alternative? Right now taxpayers pick the bill up as well as hospitals, many of which operate in the red. That to me is unacceptable. I suspect it is to most people as well.

At least with mandatory HC, we move some of the burden off of the taxpayers and on to those who use medical services. Why should the taxpayer and hospital be forced to pick up all of the bill? Why shouldn't the uninsured at least pay for part of it?

And I'd be all for removing mandatory HC is there was insurance that was cheap enough so that even the poorest of the poor could get some coverage.

I don't see how it is fair to expect the taxpayer and hospitals to pick up the bill and not expect the uninsured to pay a dime. And that's what your argument does.
 
Abosilutly not. A person such as myself that will not seek medical treatment should not be forced to pay for insurance. All of my family knows not to send me in for treatment regardless of the situation. Now if they follow that when the time comes is beyond my control. If they decide to go against my will then I also expect them to foot the bill.

Is your unusual attitude toward health care related to religion? If so, any health insurance mandate would almost certainly have religious exemptions.
 
There does not necessarily have to be jail time for that. What's your alternative? Right now taxpayers pick the bill up as well as hospitals, many of which operate in the red. That to me is unacceptable. I suspect it is to most people as well.

At least with mandatory HC, we move some of the burden off of the taxpayers and on to those who use medical services. Why should the taxpayer and hospital be forced to pick up all of the bill? Why shouldn't the uninsured at least pay for part of it?

And I'd be all for removing mandatory HC is there was insurance that was cheap enough so that even the poorest of the poor could get some coverage.

I don't see how it is fair to expect the taxpayer and hospitals to pick up the bill and not expect the uninsured to pay a dime. And that's what your argument does.

How is it fair to charge a person for simply living? And which one is more important? The right to live without being charged (and possibly thrown in jail) for simply living or peoples money?
 
How is it fair to charge a person for simply living?

Are you saying you support
-Government-run food industry
-Government-run housing
-Government-run everything else necessary for survival
?
 
How is it fair to charge a person for simply living? And which one is more important? The right to live without being charged (and possibly thrown in jail) for simply living or peoples money?

Let me clarify. Both potential outcomes are bad. But I don't see why on Earth we should expect the taxpayers and hospitals to cover the entire bill.

Doesn't it seem at least more responsible for those who are getting healthcare to pay at least SOMETHING?

If we are going to have to pay for it, let's at least make the person getting care pay for part of it. It's only fair that way.

There is a potential solution here though. After getting care, your wages are garnished or some of your property seized to cover the costs if you do not pay up. But what do we do for truly destitute people? Let them just die?

You are arguing from an idealistic view, rather than what is actually going to happen and what happens now.
 
Are you saying you support
-Government-run food industry
-Government-run housing
-Government-run everything else necessary for survival
?

We already have those things to some extent. I, for one, fully support food stamps. I would much rather have a program like the food stamp program instead of a program that just gives people money.

The same is true of government-run housing. While I do support some housing assistance for those who can't afford it, I do not support government-owned "projects," since they breed crime and are usually filthy. I would much rather have the government give people a voucher to find their own housing.
 
I would much rather have a program like the food stamp program instead of a program that just gives people money.

Why? I mean, if you just gave them money, it would be their money to use any way they wanted, and chances are they might want to buy food with it....
 
Why? I mean, if you just gave them money, it would be their money to use any way they wanted, and chances are they might want to buy food with it....

They might. Or they might want to buy heroin with it.
 
Let me clarify. Both potential outcomes are bad. But I don't see why on Earth we should expect the taxpayers and hospitals to cover the entire bill.

I would rather expect the tax payer and the hospital pay for the entire bill than to put people in jail just for living.

Doesn't it seem at least more responsible for those who are getting healthcare to pay at least SOMETHING?

Of course. But I'm not arguing that. While I certainly believe in personal responsibility I do not think that a person should get taxed, fined or go to jail for simply living.

If we are going to have to pay for it, let's at least make the person getting care pay for part of it. It's only fair that way.

Fine, I can easily agree with that. But that does not mean that insurance has to be mandatory. It can be done on a case by case basis.

There is a potential solution here though. After getting care, your wages are garnished or some of your property seized to cover the costs if you do not pay up.

Which is pretty much what happens now.

But what do we do for truly destitute people? Let them just die?

I wouldn't mind paying for their healthcare via taxes. As is done now. But again destitute people either don't care if they get health care or not or will readily sign up for Obamacare the second they get the chance.

If it's the first one then they won't care if they get insurance or not. More than likely because jail would be a better alternative than what they have now. (3 square meals a day, a bed to sleep in etc etc) So no need for mandatory here as it will just cost the taxpayer even more money than trying to make them have insurance.

If it's the second one then there is no need to make it mandatory. For obvious reasons.
 
So your solution is to force hospitals to treat people for emergency care, and then stick them with the bill if the person is unable to pay for whatever reason. Got it. :doh

It is very unlikely that they won't be able to pay in the future.
A payment plan should be arranged and if the person tries to stiff them they can take them to court and have their wages garnished.

Why should someone be allowed to be a deadbeat when the hospital could have potentially saved their life?

If they die the hospital can go after the estate of the person.
If there is nothing in the estate to take then they can suck it up like the rest of creditors have to do when someone dies penniless.
 
It is very unlikely that they won't be able to pay in the future.
A payment plan should be arranged and if the person tries to stiff them they can take them to court and have their wages garnished.

What if the nature of the condition for which they are being treated makes them unable to return to work?

Harry Guerrilla said:
If they die the hospital can go after the estate of the person.
If there is nothing in the estate to take then they can suck it up like the rest of creditors have to do when someone dies penniless.

Except unlike other creditors, the patient was brought to the hospital and the hospital had no choice but to treat them. Or if you are implausibly suggesting that hospitals be allowed to dig through ER patients' pockets for insurance cards and refuse treatment if they don't find one, they are still at a disadvantage over, say, a bank, in that they don't have much time to analyze the patient's financial data before deciding whether or not to treat them.
 
Last edited:
What if the nature of the condition for which they are being treated makes them unable to return to work?

They can go on disability like everyone else and I suppose the taxpayer can foot it, since they will anyway.

Except unlike other creditors, the patient was brought to the hospital and the hospital had no choice but to treat them. Or if you are implausibly suggesting that hospitals be allowed to dig through ER patients' pockets for insurance cards and refuse treatment if they don't find one, they are still at a disadvantage over, say, a bank, in that they don't have much time to analyze the patient's financial data before deciding whether or not to treat them.

Not even close.

The hospital can collect all that information after the patient is stabilized just like now.
They don't need to be a bank they just need to be paid and making medical expenses not included in bankruptcy solves this.
 
They can go on disability like everyone else and I suppose the taxpayer can foot it, since they will anyway.

Or we can just require them to have insurance so that the taxpayer doesn't NEED to foot it.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Not even close.

The hospital can collect all that information after the patient is stabilized just like now.

Irrelevant. By that time, they've already incurred the expense of treating the patient. If they collect that information and find out he's a bad credit risk, they can't go back and un-treat him.

They shouldn't have to "suck it up like the rest of the creditors." Unlike all the other creditors, the hospital didn't have a choice but to provide the service, and they didn't have the patient's financial information when they did.

Harry Guerrilla said:
They don't need to be a bank they just need to be paid and making medical expenses not included in bankruptcy solves this.

So an 18-year-old who is in a serious car accident and runs up $2 million in medical bills should be saddled with that debt for the rest of his life? That sounds like a remarkably strong incentive for people to become prostitutes and drug-dealers instead of doctors and businessmen.
 
Or we can just require them to have insurance so that the taxpayer doesn't NEED to foot it.

I don't believe in pre-coercion, now post coercion after you have incurred a debt, I'm all for that.

Irrelevant. By that time, they've already incurred the expense of treating the patient. If they collect that information and find out he's a bad credit risk, they can't go back and un-treat him.

They shouldn't have to "suck it up like the rest of the creditors." Unlike all the other creditors, the hospital didn't have a choice but to provide the service, and they didn't have the patient's financial information when they did.

So what, in this hypothetical situation they have the legal means to collect their money that is owed to them.

So an 18-year-old who is in a serious car accident and runs up $2 million in medical bills should be saddled with that debt for the rest of his life? That sounds like a remarkably strong incentive for people to become prostitutes and drug-dealers instead of doctors and businessmen.

Insurance wouldn't have to be mandatory after a couple of those I guarantee it.
It's called cause and effect, you take a great risk you may not like the outcome.
Of course that doesn't mean that a charity won't help.
 
Last edited:
Okay...how do you know you will not seek medical treatment in the future?

Its against my personal beliefs.


So you're telling me, your family would let you die rather than send you to a hospital?

I really cannot answer that. I have requested that they do not seek aid for me in any situation but if they will or not will have to be seen.


So you expect your family to foot the bill for life saving treatment?

Yes I do if they have gone against my wishes and sent me in for treatment.
 
On another site, which I am on for professional reasons (no wisecracks ;) ) a gentleman made a very good case for having only catastrophic coverage with a $5,000 deductible and paying out of pocket for the routine stuff.

His point being when you buy car insurance your covered if you get into an accident, its stolen, and what not.

the policy does not cover tune-ups, tire rotations, transmission fluid changes, air filters, etc, etc, etc....

I like where he was going with it, and am looking into it for myself
 
On another site, which I am on for professional reasons (no wisecracks ;) ) a gentleman made a very good case for having only catastrophic coverage with a $5,000 deductible and paying out of pocket for the routine stuff.

His point being when you buy car insurance your covered if you get into an accident, its stolen, and what not.

the policy does not cover tune-ups, tire rotations, transmission fluid changes, air filters, etc, etc, etc....

I like where he was going with it, and am looking into it for myself

I agree with this. $5000 is a bit steep for me, but I like the idea of low-premium / high-deductible policies in general. This would encourage cost control. I would like to see more tax incentives for this kind of policy, and I think any public options should be geared toward this sort of thing.

The individual plan I have now doesn't pay anything until I hit $1500, and it pays everything beyond that. If more people had these sorts of policies, it would encourage doctors to compete on cost for routine procedures. The only change I would make is to give people a couple of free annual check-ups. A lot of people (myself included) are probably less likely to get check-ups if we have to spend money out of pocket...which may cause larger bills in the long term.
 
Last edited:
people buy heroin, they buy cigarette, and they buy boooze and lottery tickets with food stamps already. How is that different?

None of those things are covered by food stamps. If you're talking about bartering them on the secondary market, you are correct that it happens, but I don't want to make it even easier to do this by giving people cash instead of food.
 
Last edited:
Only if the gov. steps in and pays the bill for those who cannot afford it. And no that is not happening right now because while we have medicaid a lot of working class fall just below that line to get help but these working people can hardly afford to carry the insurance much less go to the doctor and pay for high dollar meds.
 
Except the taxpayers WILL have an obligation to pay for your medical care if you don't have insurance. If a guy is in a bad car accident and is brought into the emergency room hemorrhaging blood, the doctors aren't going to waste time trying to fish an insurance card out of his pocket, nor should they be expected to do so. They're just going to treat him as best they can.

If it turns out he doesn't have insurance, who should be responsible for his medical costs? The taxpayers? I'd rather make insurance mandatory so that people can't pass their costs off to the taxpayers, by being selfish and irresponsible by not having insurance.

Where do you expect the folks who are hard working and busting their ass just to keep a roof over their heads and pay their bills are gonna get this money to pay for it? You cannot pull it out of their broke ass! My suggesting is go after big pharma and the health insurance corps to make them Lower prices and set caps on what they can charge. This is the only way.
 
It will just raise rates for everybody, if all are forced to purchase insurance.

First of all, you have the people who can't get insurance because of an expensive medical condition, or at least can't get coverage for that condition. Insurance companies would have to be forced to take them, and thus raise the rate for the entire pool for the additional risk they have taken on.

Next, you have people who cannot afford health insurance, who would be forced to pay. That's an additional burden on them, and if they don't pay, then there is the additional cost in either fining, jailing, or otherwise disciplining those that refuse.

Yeah! The day my country starts putting people in jail over healthcare is the day I will get the hell out! We are suppose to be better than this. :(
 
Where do you expect the folks who are hard working and busting their ass just to keep a roof over their heads and pay their bills are gonna get this money to pay for it? You cannot pull it out of their broke ass! My suggesting is go after big pharma and the health insurance corps to make them Lower prices and set caps on what they can charge. This is the only way.

Nearly all health insurance mandates are coupled with subsidies and/or vouchers for lower income people. And rather than "making" health insurance companies lower their prices, I support a revenue-neutral public option to compete with them on a level playing field. Then they would naturally reduce their prices without being forced to do so.
 
We are becoming a two class society. The middle class is slowly disappearing. Most us that are left in the middle class still have jobs that still provide health care at least to some level. Anybody above middle class can afford their own. So who does the burden to pay for government health care fall on? Those people who are already at the poverty level or below. And if they do not pay we will fine a family that already has their backs up against the wall 2 thousand a year for failure to comply with a government enforced policy.

At least to me. Not a good idea.
Moe

You are so right about the middle class: it hardly exsist. In these days you are poor or rich. Sure there are a few in between but most of the middle class are one or a few paychecks away from being broke and poor. It is a sad state of affairs in this country. :(
 
Back
Top Bottom