• 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!

Yet Another Health Care poll

Would you support a health care bill without a public option?

  • Yes, a public option is what is wrong with current reform plans

    Votes: 7 17.1%

  • Yes, a partial reform bill is better than no reform bill

    Votes: 5 12.2%

  • Yes, I like reform, but not a public option at least now

    Votes: 5 12.2%

  • No, no reform is needed

    Votes: 1 2.4%

  • No, no public option makes the bill not worth passing

    Votes: 13 31.7%

  • other

    Votes: 10 24.4%
  • Total voters
    41
Redress said:
So outlaw health insurance in essence? Am I following that right?
Click to expand...
As the most extreme measure, yes.

The insured consumer does not generally care about thr costs of the goods and services provided to him as he pays little of it. The more of it he pays, the more the awareness creeps in, and the more likely he is to look for the best service he can obtain with the best price he can get. As people do this, health care providers will be forced to compete with one another for business, lowering prices and increasign quality of service, so that the consumer might choose them as the best value for their health care dollar.
 
Goobieman said:
As the most extreme measure, yes.

The insured consumer does not generally care about thr costs of the goods and services provided to him as he pays little of it. The more of it he pays, the more the awareness creeps in, and the more likely he is to look for the best service he can obtain with the best price he can get. As people do this, health care providers will be forced to compete with one another for business, lowering prices and increasign quality of service, so that the consumer might choose them as the best value for their health care dollar.
Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining.
 
The problem has a simple set of solutions:

Increase number of doctors by accepting doctor degrees from outside the country on a trail period working in hospitals and clinics for 5 years before they can practice privately.

Also provide funding for Specialty medical High schools so students can start earning credits earlier.

Create free tution to doctors who will sign contracts to work in most needed areas for 5 years.

Tort reform is vital, and is pretty self explanatory.

Open up markets so you can buy insurance in any state from any vendor.

Fine and jail anyone who hires illegal workers, fine and jail anyone providing home for illegal aliens. This should lower our hospital costs.
 
Goobieman said:
As the most extreme measure, yes.

The insured consumer does not generally care about thr costs of the goods and services provided to him as he pays little of it. The more of it he pays, the more the awareness creeps in, and the more likely he is to look for the best service he can obtain with the best price he can get. As people do this, health care providers will be forced to compete with one another for business, lowering prices and increasign quality of service, so that the consumer might choose them as the best value for their health care dollar.
Click to expand...

Waaaaaaaaaait a minute...

So not only are you in favor of allowing hospitals to deny emergency care to anyone who lacks insurance, but you ALSO favor making it illegal for them to get insurance in the first place? In other words, you think it should be a giant crapshoot whether anyone gets emergency treatment for anything?

For someone who is so obsessed with the immorality of others denying you the right to your own property, you are quite eager to take that same right away from others. Hey remember that time you accused me of wanting to force everyone to live their lives the way I want them to...and then you advocated banning people from getting health insurance? ****ing hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
As far as I can tell, HR3200 and the Baukus bill most recently (have only heard about) both take $500B from Medicare/Medicaid. I don't believe they will find 1/2 a $Trillion is fraud and abuse. Therefore, what I perceive they are doing in the most simplistic way is to take money from seniors and the poor who need it and give it to those who do not need it, the young, or refuse to get it, their right, and illegal aliens, of couse given amnesty before qualifying. That is just wrong.

I've just seen Obama speaking to a Hispanic group saying that they will get covered when they get amnesty. Guess Rep Joe was right!
 
Until they are willing to address the underlying problems with the current health-care system, anything they do will not fix the problems, it will only exacerbate them. Unfortunately, addressing the actual problems is political suicide, the political parties get a lot of political donations from the problematic parties and pissing them off is going to cost them elections, therefore they'll never touch them.

So I'd rather see no fixes if the fixes aren't going to actually solve the problems. They can come back when they're serious.
 
For those of you who are saying that no public option means that the bill is bad, let me rephrase this question for you:

Suppose that at the end of the day, the votes simply are not there for a public option. Would you then believe that insurance companies should be allowed to continue cancelling plans, discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, and looking for any pretext to avoid paying out claims...even if Congress has the votes to prevent all of these abuses?
 
Kandahar said:
So not only are you in favor of allowing hospitals to deny emergency care to anyone who lacks insurance, but you ALSO favor making it illegal for them to get insurance in the first place? In other words, you think it should be a giant crapshoot whether anyone gets emergency treatment for anything?
Click to expand...
Read what I said -- it pretty plain.

If the problem is the cost of health care, with said cost meaning that some people cannot afford it, then the solution is to lower costs. Eliminating third-party payment and exposing the consumer to the full cost of the goods and services he receives creates competition, which lowers prices and improves quality.

For someone who is so obsessed with the immorality of others denying you the right to your own property, you are quite eager to take that same right away from others.
Click to expand...
Morality? Where do I discuss morality here?

On the contrary -- I'm not taking anything for everyone; you absolutely retain the right to health care, and your ability to exercise that right is improved through the lowering of costs.

Hey remember that time you accused me of wanting to force everyone to live their lives the way I want them to...and then you advocated banning people from getting health insurance? ****ing hypocrite.
Click to expand...
That accusation stands; your pre-pubescent commentary denotes a profound, and likely willful, ignorance.
 
Goobieman said:
Read what I said -- it pretty plain.

If the problem is the cost of health care, with said cost meaning that some people cannot afford it, then the solution is to lower costs. Eliminating third-party payment and exposing the consumer to the full cost of the goods and services he receives creates competition, which lowers prices and improves quality.
Click to expand...

Applying the same generic rhetoric in regards to policy revolving around market optimality does nothing to prove your point. First and foremost, you will have to diverge the elasticity of the demand for this specific service known as health care. As we all know, when you are in dire need of medical care, even a rational consumer will go into debt to ensure recovery. Right there you can attest the demand for health care to be inelastic.

Your solution in "exposing the consumer" makes little sense. No matter how much you fluctuate prices, the quantity demanded for health care will not change by very much.

Quick question, although i expect a sub par response: Should the elderly be exposed to their own costs of health care? Why, or why not?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Applying the same generic rhetoric...
Click to expand...
I'm sorry -- given how you were so very obviously -not- interested in a legitimate discussion of pigovian taxation, looking instead only for a vehicle to deliver personal attacks, I see no reason to consider the possibility that any of your subsequent comments or questions contain any degree of authenticity.

:2wave:
 
Goobieman said:
I'm sorry -- given how you were so very obviously -not- interested in a legitimate discussion of pigovian taxation, looking instead only for a vehicle to deliver personal attacks, I see no reason to consider the possibility that any of your subsequent comments or questions contain any degree of authenticity.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Are you afraid of addressing the flaws in your argument? If so, then there is no need to attempt to save face.

Your naive application of the price mechanism does not apply in cases where demand is as inelastic as in the case of health care. Run along now:lol:
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Are you afraid of addressing the flaws in your argument? If so, then there is no need to attempt to save face.

Your naive application of the price mechanism does not apply in cases where demand is as inelastic as in the case of health care. Run along now:lol:
Click to expand...
I see no reason to consider the possibility that any of your subsequent comments or questions contain any degree of authenticity...
 
Goobieman said:
I'm sorry -- given how you were so very obviously -not- interested in a legitimate discussion of pigovian taxation, looking instead only for a vehicle to deliver personal attacks, I see no reason to consider the possibility that any of your subsequent comments or questions contain any degree of authenticity.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

You are hilarious. :lol:
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Quick question, although i expect a sub par response: Should the elderly be exposed to their own costs of health care? Why, or why not?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, *EVERYONE* should be required to pay their own health care costs. Why is that even a question?
 
Cephus said:
Absolutely, *EVERYONE* should be required to pay their own health care costs. Why is that even a question?
Click to expand...
Not just absolutely, but abso-frigging-lutely.
 
Cephus said:
Absolutely, *EVERYONE* should be required to pay their own health care costs. Why is that even a question?
Click to expand...

:rofl This is rich!

So tell me, are you in favor of scrapping medicaid, and also believe that in doing so, it would bring down the cost in elderly health care?:mrgreen:
 
Goobieman said:
:funny
I offered to have the conversation.
He backed off.
No other way to look at it.
Click to expand...

You offered essentially squat, and refuse to respond in any authentic fashion, of which i am forced to view it as fear. Goobie loves to talk big, but when it is time to back it up, he runs for cover:)
 
Goldenboy219 said:
You offered essentially squat...
Click to expand...
Utter nonesense.

I told you to pontificate to your heart's content, and then I would respond.

You -refused- to do so, as all you wanted from the exhange was the opportunity to make personal attacks.

You know it. I know it.
 
Goobieman said:
Utter nonesense.

I told you to pontificate to your heart's content, and then I would respond.

You -refused- to do so, as all you wanted from the exhange was the opportunity to make personal attacks.

You know it. I know it.
Click to expand...

You were asked a question by another poster, and in the same fashion displayed in the health care fine thread, you ran for cover. I made a legitimate comment on the fact that you tend to hide when asked to walk the walk. This is common DP knowledge:lol:

Care to elaborate on my so called "personal attacks"? You have to ask yourself, am i attacking you as a person, or attacking the idea's you spew. Or maybe, next time i will refrain from using question marks at the end of my questions. You never seem to reply to sentences ending in them....
 
Goldenboy219 said:
You were asked a question by another poster, and in the same fashion displayed in the health care fine thread, you ran for cover. I made a legitimate comment on the fact that you tend to hide when asked to walk the walk. This is common DP knowledge
Click to expand...
None of this changes a -thing- that I said.

You were asked to put up, and you chose to shut up.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
None of this changes a -thing- that I said.

You were asked to put up, and you chose to shut up.
Click to expand...

In the previous thread where a fine was proposed for those who do not purchase health care, you stated you were utterly against it based on the premise of criminality. I responded in proper form asking you your opinion of Pigouvian taxation, of which you were so filled with fear on that request, you utterly ran away.

My question was, instead of a fine, if we were to view it as a tax, are you still against the idea?

In another thread, you actually had the balls to say:

Goobieman said:
So... you don't have an answer to my questions.

What a shock.:roll:

When you do, please let me know.

Please note that this conversations -always- ends with me asking you these questions and you running away from them; this time will obviously not be any different.
Click to expand...

:lamo

I think you have shuffled yourself off of a plank.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
In the previous thread where a fine was proposed for those who do not purchase health care, you stated you were utterly against it based on the premise of criminality. I responded in proper form asking you your opinion of Pigouvian taxation, of which you were so filled with fear on that request, you utterly ran away.
Click to expand...
This is, of course, an outright lie.

That you need to lie in order to make a point says all that needs to be said.
 
Goobieman said:
This is, of course, an outright lie.

That you need to lie in order to make a point says all that needs to be said.
Click to expand...

No need to lie. Your actions tell all.
 
For clairification:

Goldenboy219 said:
Do you believe pigouvian taxes are unjust?
Click to expand...

Goobieman said:
This does not address my post.
Click to expand...

Goobieman said:
I know. His question was in response to mione, and as such, I need not answer it. Fact remains, his question does not address my post.
Click to expand...

Goobieman said:
Hold your breath.
Click to expand...

Goobieman said:
hardly -- see below.


The problem here is that we're talking fines, not taxes.
Therefore, none of this applies.
Click to expand...

Goldenboy219 said:
I beg to differ. What is the difference between a pigouvian tax and a fine?
Click to expand...

Goobieman said:
​
The issue here is the idea of FINES as a penalty for not having health care.

If you want to dicuss something else, like taxes, go somewhere else and discuss it.


Its even MORE obvious as to why -you- don't want to discuss the issue at hand.
:2wave:
Click to expand...

Two health care threads in which you refuse to have a serious discussion due to fear alone....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom