• 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
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.

You really do not think we should go after big pharma? They are a bunch of crooks and doctors get kick backs for pushing their drugs.
 
You really do not think we should go after big pharma? They are a bunch of crooks and doctors get kick backs for pushing their drugs.

I'm hesitant to disincentivize the research and development of new life-saving drugs by changing patent laws and/or trying to set prices. But ya, if a doctor is being paid by them, that's a conflict of interest that could very well be an ethical violation.
 
It is a fact they get kick backs for pushing certain drugs.
 
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.
debit cards seem like it may be a good idea, reloaded monthly or whatever
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.

by creating an entity to 'compete with the' on a non-profit basis is forcing them to do so
 
debit cards seem like it may be a good idea, reloaded monthly or whatever

I think that's essentially how the Food Stamp program works now. I don't think they actually use stamps anymore.

DeeJayH said:
by creating an entity to 'compete with the' on a non-profit basis is forcing them to do so

Then that's just the way it is. Not everything has to be done for a profit (look at the huge number of top-notch, non-profit public and private universities). As long as the public option charges premiums that are high enough to recover its expenses, the private companies' profit margins are fair game. On the other hand, if it's truly as inefficient and unreliable as its opponents claim it will be, then the private companies should hardly be affected by it at all.

While I don't believe the public option will put private insurers out of business like many people hope/fear, I do think that it will encourage a transition from viewing health insurance as a for-profit big business, to a non-profit public service. And I don't see what's so tragic about that.
 
Last edited:
it is evil and comunist
 
Yes, having health insurance should be mandatory. There is no practical/ethical way to deny someone emergency health care just because they don't have insurance
Sure there is:
-Those that provide the goods and services have a right to be compensated for same;
-You do not have a right to expect others to pay for goods and services you receive
-You are responsible for yourself, and you are responsible for the choices you make, regardless of the circumstances of those choices.
 
Except the taxpayers WILL have an obligation to pay for your medical care if you don't have insurance.
This is not at all necessarily so.
The taxpayers only have this 'obligation' because the law says so.
You can very easily eliminate this 'obligation' by changing the law.

If it turns out he doesn't have insurance, who should be responsible for his medical costs?
He, himself.
 
If healthcare is not mandatory, then those who refuse to get it, and cannot pay for services, should be denied, or at the least, the government, under no circumstances should subsidize in any way. No exceptions. If this is not an option, then it should be mandatory. If we go with a personal responsibility model, if someone chooses not to protect their health in this way, it is not the government's responsibility to pay. If a hospital, individual, or charity wants to cover it, fine, that is their choice. If they do not, no services.
 
Seriously, medical bills should be non bankrupt able bills.
Why?
Why should you not be responible for the goods and services provided to you by others?
 
That is not a practical solution. If someone is in a car accident and is hemorrhaging blood when they're brought into the emergency room, how is the hospital going to know if they can pay or not?
If they administer treatment before doing so, then they run the risk of not getting paid. Their choice.

What it all boils down to is that there's no rational argument for me being responsible for your medical bills, and that you have a right to have me provide you the means to exercise your right (if any) to health care.
 
If healthcare is not mandatory, then those who refuse to get it, and cannot pay for services, should be denied, or at the least, the government, under no circumstances should subsidize in any way. No exceptions.
:applaud


If we go with a personal responsibility model, if someone chooses not to protect their health in this way, it is not the government's responsibility to pay. If a hospital, individual, or charity wants to cover it, fine, that is their choice. If they do not, no services.
:applaud
 
If they administer treatment before doing so, then they run the risk of not getting paid. Their choice.So, the hospital determines that the man has no money, no insurance, so they just let him die..

What it all boils down to is that there's no rational argument for me being responsible for your medical bills,one unrealistic way way of looking it it and that you have a right to have me provide you the means to exercise your right (if any) to health care.

This is an example of the wealthy man's(or his supporters) attitude that I speak of...
If we do, in fact have a representative democracy, and Obama's health care reform is voted down, then, I'll have to move to a more civilized nation and give our country more time to grow up.
 
This is an example of the wealthy man's(or his supporters) attitude that I speak of...
Not for a second disregarding the fact that you didnt actually address my argument...

As opposed to a socialist, who has no issue with taking money from the haves and redistributing it among the have nots?

Tell me, exactly, how it is that having the right to health care equates to having the right to force other people to provide you with the means to exercise your right to health care.

If we do, in fact have a representative democracy, and Obama's health care reform is voted down, then, I'll have to move to a more civilized nation and give our country more time to grow up.
You mean like all those all-show-and-no-go liberals that promised to leave if GWB were (re)elected?
:roll:
Dont let the door hit you in the Obama.

And while you're on your way out, remember that if The Obama's plan does fail, it is because the DEMOCRATS failed to pass it.
 
Sure there is:
-Those that provide the goods and services have a right to be compensated for same;
-You do not have a right to expect others to pay for goods and services you receive
-You are responsible for yourself, and you are responsible for the choices you make, regardless of the circumstances of those choices.

OK, so since you think this is a practical alternative, please explain how it would work when someone is brought into the emergency room, bleeding and unconscious.

Do the doctors rummage through the patients' pockets for an insurance card first, or do they not waste time and treat the patient as best they can? If they treat the patient and later discover that he doesn't have insurance, can they un-treat him? If they rummage through his pockets and don't find an insurance card, and refuse to treat the dying patient, can his family go back and sue the hospital if it turns out he did have health insurance?


The point is...anyone who claims that hospitals should be allowed to deny emergency care to people without insurance hasn't even considered the practical ramifications of that.
 
Last edited:
OK, so since you think this is a practical alternative, please explain how it would work when someone is brought into the emergency room, bleeding and unconscious.
Not sure why you think this is so difficult...
The health care providers make a determination of the victim's ability to pay using whatever means they have available. If they determine the victim has insurance, then all is well; if they determine he does not, or they cannot make a determination, then they decide to treat him at their risk, or not treat him.

If the victim does not have insurance, and the providers treat him then he, himself is financially responsible for the bills he incurrs.

Your right to health care does not trump anyone's right to be compensated for the goods and services they provide, or euqate to the right to force others to provide you with the means to exercise your right to same.

The point is...anyone who claims that hospitals should be allowed to deny emergency care to people without insurance hasn't even considered the practical ramifications of that.
Obviously, that's not true.
 
Not sure why you think this is so difficult...
The health care providers make a determination of the victim's ability to pay using whatever means they have available. If they determine the victim has insurance, then all is well; if they determine he does not, or they cannot make a determination, then they decide to treat him at their risk, or not treat him.

So what is your answer to my other question: If they decide to do nothing, and it turns out he did have health insurance, can his family sue the hospital?

Goobieman said:
If the victim does not have insurance, and the providers treat him then he, himself is financially responsible for the bills he incurrs.

What if he dies? You want to stick the hospital with the bill?

Goobieman said:
Your right to health care does not trump anyone's right to be compensated for the goods and services they provide,

An unusual position, coming from someone who wants to saddle individual hospitals with individual debts that they didn't ask for, instead of spreading the cost out amongst the public. :roll:

Goobieman said:
Obviously, that's not true.

It is true, as you are STILL refusing to consider the practical consequences even after I pointed them out to you.
 
Since we live in a society where the vast majority of us have a conscience and thus no one is willing to deny someone life saving care if they need it, then its only fair for citizens in that society to have to have some sort of a catastrophic policy.

People on here can dream up all the fantasy worlds they want where someone can be brought to a hospital in critical condition and simply be thrown out on the street to die if they can't pay for their treatment, but that is not reality, its never been reality, and unless the next generation is a bunch of sociopaths, its never going to be reality.

The reality is that we as a nation have decided that it is unconscionable for anyone to be denied life saving care even if they have no way of paying for it. So when someone racks up huge medical bills and cannot pay, the costs are then passed on to everyone else. Thus, in a society like ours, you know, where most people have a conscience, its perfectly reasonable to require individuals that choose to live here to at least carry some sort of a minimal catastrophic policy so that in the event that they are brought to the hospital in critical condition or ate up with cancer, the bulk of the costs of their treatment will not be passed on to everyone else. This is no different than requiring drivers that want to drive on U.S. roads to at least have a minimal liability policy.

If such a requirement were put in place, insurance companies would respond with very inexpensive catastrophic policies for individuals to purchase to meet that requirement. For example, if to protect everyone else, you simply required that individuals maintain a catastrophic only policy with at most a $10,000 deductible and 20% coinsurance.

I priced the cost for that basic level of coverage for me:

Cost: $27.81 a month

Blue Cross Blue Shield Blue Rate Saver PPO.

So for just requiring individuals that choose to live on U.S. soil to cary that basic level of coverage so that in the event that something catastrophic were to happen to them the taxpayers and those that choose to be insured did not have to bear the costs. This is nothing unique either. Even Hong Kong, the most free market economy on earth, with some of the lowest taxes on earth, requires those that live there to cary a catastrophic policy. It's not to protect you (although it does), but rather its to protect everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Not sure why you think this is so difficult...
The health care providers make a determination of the victim's ability to pay using whatever means they have available. If they determine the victim has insurance, then all is well; if they determine he does not, or they cannot make a determination, then they decide to treat him at their risk, or not treat him.



The Emergency Department cannot turn anyone away based on their ability or inability to pay. It's illegal.


:2wave:
 
Thus, in a society like ours, you know, where most people have a conscience, its perfectly reasonable to require individuals that choose to live here to at least carry some sort of a minimal catastrophic policy....

Fairly good post. Except for the part that I have quoted. Not everyone can "choose" where they live. Not everyone has the ability or money to move to a different country. Which is basically what you are saying. So you condemn those people to pay for something which they can't afford, and which charges them for simply living. Where's your "conscience" now?

I really wish that people wouldn't base their abilities to do something on everyone else.
 
Fairly good post. Except for the part that I have quoted. Not everyone can "choose" where they live. Not everyone has the ability or money to move to a different country. Which is basically what you are saying. So you condemn those people to pay for something which they can't afford, and which charges them for simply living. Where's your "conscience" now?

I think it's generally implied when discussing health care mandates that they would be coupled with some kind of assistance for those who can't afford it. In the current health care debate, I have never heard anyone who believes that health care should be mandatory but no assistance should be given.
 
Last edited:
If healthcare is not mandatory, then those who refuse to get it, and cannot pay for services, should be denied

Only problem with that part of the sentence is that millions who show up at emergency rooms every year can not by law be denied treatment. When some guy shows up with a bullet 4 inches from his heart in an emergency room at a hospital, and I say when because this happens every year in America, do you think hospitals should be allowed to deny him treatment because he doesn't have insurance? Do you know how big a lawsuit would follow if that happened? How many lawyers are ready with enough knowledge of the law to go for the first hospital to even try such a thing? The first part of your sentence I don't think would even be possible.
 
So what is your answer to my other question: If they decide to do nothing, and it turns out he did have health insurance, can his family sue the hospital?
No. Why should they be able to?

What if he dies? You want to stick the hospital with the bill?
The bill then goes to the estate. If they estate cannot pay, then the hospital is stuck with it. As noted before, if the hospital cannot determine the patients ability to pay and they treat him anywway, they assume the risk of non-payment.

An unusual position, coming from someone who wants to saddle individual hospitals with individual debts that they didn't ask for, instead of spreading the cost out amongst the public. :roll:
Strawman. See above. Be sure to read the part where I state "if the hospital cannot determine the patients ability to pay and they treat him anywway, they assume the risk of non-payment".

Beyond that, I'll assume that since you didnt otherwise address the rest of what I wrote in that paragraph, you cannot do so.

It is true, as you are STILL refusing to consider the practical consequences even after I pointed them out to you.
Obviously not.
 
Since we live in a society where the vast majority of us have a conscience...
It doesn't matter how often you repeat your spiel here, your position has been addressed, and you have done nothing to counter the arguments that addrsss it. As such, your position remains untenable.
 
Back
Top Bottom