• 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!

Do you agree w/ my position on mandated health care?

Do you agree with me

  • Total voters
    32
Goobieman said:
I disagree with any mandated health care position.

If one does not want to have health care, they should be allowed to opt out. However, if they then get ill, under no circumstances should the government assist or subsidize their health expenses. They made a choice. They need to then take responsibility for that choice and manage their health care out of their own expenses.

Also, doctors and hospitals should not be required to accept any "opt out" patients without ability to pay verification. IMO, this kind of thing will save the US more tax dollars than anything I've seen presented in health care reform.

Do you agree with me?
Why or why not?
Click to expand...

If there is mandated health care, simple math shows that eventually health insurance will become about as cheap as car insurance.
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
Fortunately, it is provided through my employer and is not terribly expensive.
Click to expand...

Just curious - when you say it's not expensive, are you counting the portion paid by the employer or only the voluntary portion you elect to have deducted from your paycheck?

For example, my last employer subsidized insurance plan cost me a little over $50/month. I think it was $57. That was single no children no wife, just me. If I assumed the insurance cost $57 (which effectively was my cost, since it was the only cost I could control) I would say it was not very expensive at all.

The same insurance through cobra was over $500. So the employer was actually paying almost 90% of my insurance when I paid the small amount. The real cost of my insurance was over $500/month.
 
My part is 80 dollars per month, but I don't take out the "premium" plan. I rarely go to a doctor, I don't take any medications (prescription or non-prescription), and I have to pay a higher deductible than the more expensive plan requires . This is for just myself. It's a pretty basic PPO plan, and I don't know what the company pays in total for it, but when I've checked around for private insurance plans with similar coverage, I would be paying 2-3 times that amount.
 
reefedjib said:
A few things to be said here:
1) I agree that health care should be a states rights issue. I believe this is the Whig party position - see my blog in my sig and link to the national party website (please visit, its a brand new blog! :) ).
Click to expand...
I will.

2) Other than NCLB, aren't there federal statutes governing that providing education is mandatory for states, even though there is limited federal financing - majority local financing? There is a Dept of Education. What does it do?
Click to expand...
If there are such statutes I am not aware of them. If there are such statutes, they would clearly violate the 10th amendment as there is absolutely NO federal power to mandate such a thing to the states.

Most Federal influence over education comes from the strings ttached to federal funding - if you want our $ you will do X.

3) You are using the term 'necessity'. Is this a legal term that enforces that fact that a 12th grade education be provided to everyone. If not, what is the legal reason we have this?
Click to expand...
:confused:
The legal reason we have compulsorary education is because the states provide it.

4) To use your terms, I would argue that health care is not a luxury, not a right, but a necessity for a functioning society.
Click to expand...
Society functioned quite well w/ nothing other than basic pay-as-you go health care. Thus, health care, as we see discussed here, is NOT a necessity for a functioning society.

It is an absolute embarrassment that we don't provide coverage to everyone. We don't lead the world in this regard and we should.
Click to expand...
Its not my responsibility to provide health care to anyone that I do not choose to provide for. If you want to make it YOUR responsibility to do so, then feel free, but do not presume to make that choice for everyone.
 
Goobieman said:
I disagree with any mandated health care position.

If one does not want to have health care, they should be allowed to opt out. However, if they then get ill, under no circumstances should the government assist or subsidize their health expenses. They made a choice. They need to then take responsibility for that choice and manage their health care out of their own expenses.

Also, doctors and hospitals should not be required to accept any "opt out" patients without ability to pay verification. IMO, this kind of thing will save the US more tax dollars than anything I've seen presented in health care reform.

Do you agree with me?
Why or why not?
Click to expand...

I agree in theory, but in practice it would never work.
 
Goobieman said:
If there are such statutes I am not aware of them. If there are such statutes, they would clearly violate the 10th amendment as there is absolutely NO federal power to mandate such a thing to the states.

Most Federal influence over education comes from the strings ttached to federal funding - if you want our $ you will do X.


:confused:
The legal reason we have compulsorary education is because the states provide it.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I see. All of the states have passed compulsory education. It is interesting that the federal government taxes and gives funds to the states for this.

Goobieman said:
Society functioned quite well w/ nothing other than basic pay-as-you go health care. Thus, health care, as we see discussed here, is NOT a necessity for a functioning society.
Click to expand...

Well, this is a ridiculous, conservative viewpoint. Times change. What once cost $25 dollars now cost $2500. New medications, procedures and health care responses have evolved. Our understanding of the necessity of healthcare for a functioning state has evolved.

Goobieman said:
Its not my responsibility to provide health care to anyone that I do not choose to provide for. If you want to make it YOUR responsibility to do so, then feel free, but do not presume to make that choice for everyone.
Click to expand...

I want to make it a necessity along the lines of a compulsory education. It should be done at the state level. There is federal tax dollars given to those states who implement compulsory healthcare. There are state taxes which pay for it. Different states can come up with different systems. If you are in a state that doesn't want to pay for it, that's fine, your federal tax dollars will go to states that do. So there!
 
reefedjib said:
Well, this is a ridiculous, conservative viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Ridiculing it does not negate it, and in fact, since we do not have 'health care' at present and society still functions, the point is proven.

I want to make it a necessity along the lines of a compulsory education.
Click to expand...
You cannot, as you cannot -create- a condition where society cannot function w/o it.
 
Goobieman said:
Ridiculing it does not negate it, and in fact, since we do not have 'health care' at present and society still functions, the point is proven.


You cannot, as you cannot -create- a condition where society cannot function w/o it.
Click to expand...

Society functions to a degree. Society would function better with compulsory healthcare.

Without compulsory education, society would function to a degree. It functions better with it.

Same situation.
 
reefedjib said:
Society functions to a degree. Society would function better with compulsory healthcare.
Click to expand...
That our society functons at all negates any argument that it is necessary.

Without compulsory education, society would function to a degree. It functions better with it.
Click to expand...
OUR society would not. OUR society would collapse.
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
Society functions to a degree. Society would function better with compulsory healthcare.
Click to expand...

How?

The healthcare nazis would (you used to word compulsory, not me, live with the implications of what you demand):

Close McDonald's, Burger King, Carl's Junior, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Weinersnitchel, etc.

Implement concentration camps for the fat boys.

Replace cars with bicycles.

Ban sugar.

Eliminate white bread.

etc etc etc.

No, a free society doesn't suffer compulsory anything. It ceases to be free when the nazis come to town.
 
Goobieman said:
That our society functons at all negates any argument that it is necessary.


OUR society would not. OUR society would collapse.
Click to expand...

Explain the difference.
 
Goobieman said:
:confused:
Between what?
Click to expand...

Sorry, you claim education is a necessity for a functioning society, but healthcare is not. We need a healthy, educated citizenry. So I was asking you to explain both why education is a necessity to a functioning society and also why healthcare is not. Genuine question. I may have to change my mind again.
 
reefedjib said:
Sorry, you claim education is a necessity for a functioning society, but healthcare is not.
Click to expand...
Heathcare, as in the context of the current national discussion, and as you would have it. The fact that society functions now and that we do not have that sort of health care at present means that health care is -not- necessary for society to function.

If something exists absent a particular component, then said component is not necessary for the existance of that something.
 
Last edited:
Anyone bother to explain to the socialists just exactly why their Messiah wants to nationalize the nation's health care industry?

Well, it's not about making people healthier. You people should grow up and realize this now. That's the smokescreen.

It's about jobs.

Right now, those cubical dwellers working for the insurance companies aren't part of SEIU. Once the Messiah destroys competition in the marketplace and forces everyone to be serviced by the federal government, those clerks are going to be unemployed, but the government is going to need a HUUUUGE number of clerks, GOONION clerks, probably twice as many as are currently in the insurance industry, to process the mountains of paperwork Nationally Socialized Health Compulsion Board will have to process.

SEIU, you know, the goonions that attack Americans for opposing Messiah Care, will see their membership swelling.


THAT is what this is all about.

POWER.

Read your Orwell, folks.

=====

Ummm....I meant "cubicle dwellers", not "cubical dwellers".
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
Sorry, you claim education is a necessity for a functioning society, but healthcare is not. We need a healthy, educated citizenry.
Click to expand...

We HAVE a healthy citizenry.

Educated is debatable, given the number of people that are stupid enough to support socialism, but not germane to this discussion, except to point out that the US education system, government funded and goonion run, is one of hte worst in the industrialized world.

Clearly compulsory doesn't mean better.

And education isn't necessary to a functioning society, societies with educated people function better.
 
Goobieman said:
Also, doctors and hospitals should not be required to accept any "opt out" patients without ability to pay verification. IMO, this kind of thing will save the US more tax dollars than anything I've seen presented in health care reform.
Click to expand...

I agree with almost everything except the one aspect that always bothers me...and I apologize if this has already been brought up.

If the person was in the hospital for life threatening injuries and did not have insurance would you suggest they be put out to die on the curb? Or should they be treated enough to save their life and then be done with it? Of course many hospitals have pro bono budgets built from donations which could be used in cases like this. But i doubt this would occur in every hospital.

It also doesn't sit well with me that health care costs are so inflated that insurance is required for even the most routine procedures. Why exactly does it cost $10,000 to use an MRI machine for 15 minutes? Why are doctors paid $5,000 to perform a 30 minute minor surgery?

My son's birth, which was completely natural and there were no issues, would have cost nearly $7,000 without insurance.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
If the person was in the hospital for life threatening injuries and did not have insurance would you suggest they be put out to die on the curb?
Click to expand...
The hospital should have a choice -- treat the patient knowing it might not ever be compensated, or refuse treatment. Otherwise, you're -forcing- someone to pay for good and services received by someone else.

It also doesn't sit well with me that health care costs are so inflated that insurance is required for even the most routine procedures. Why exactly does it cost $10,000 to use an MRI machine for 15 minutes? Why are doctors paid $5,000 to perform a 30 minute minor surgery?
Click to expand...
This is a function of the consumer being insulated from the costs of the goods and services he received. If YOU had to pay for your tests, you'd be able to pay less, and be willing to shop the competition and get the best price. Competition brings lower costs and better quality.
 
Goobieman said:
The hospital should have a choice -- treat the patient knowing it might not ever be compensated, or refuse treatment. Otherwise, you're -forcing- someone to pay for good and services received by someone else.
Click to expand...

I agree with that.


Goobieman said:
This is a function of the consumer being insulated from the costs of the goods and services he received. If YOU had to pay for your tests, you'd be able to pay less, and be willing to shop the competition and get the best price. Competition brings lower costs and better quality.
Click to expand...

I see it more as a function to increase prices high enough that the consumers can't afford them on their own and are forced to utilize private insurance companies. If health care costs were driven by the consumer markets the costs could still be affordable as well as profitable.

It's a whole other topic but this bothers me the most in the health care discussion. Maybe I'll start a thread.
 
Gibberish said:
I see it more as a function to increase prices high enough that the consumers can't afford them on their own and are forced to utilize private insurance companies.
Click to expand...
This is only possible because third patries, like insurance companies, are able to pay those higher prices ans still make money. Eliminate third-party payers, and prices must go down.
 
One of, if the the major contributors to health care inflation is due to either irresponsibility or general lack of coverage (crack slippage).

On the surface it sounds just dandy. But mix a little social Darwinism with Murphy's law and what we have is a disaster waiting to happen. The American Journal of Medicine just recently released a study that concluded
"Illness or medical bills contributed to 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007"
Click to expand...

What is even more interesting is the finding:
Less than one quarter of debtors—whether medical or nonmedical— were uninsured when they filed for bankruptcy; an additional 7% had uninsured family members. Medically bankrupted families, however, had more often experienced a lapse in coverage during the 2 years before filing.
Click to expand...

So before jumping on the "make people responsible" bandwagon, we should consider if such a notion has real policy implications and what might they be.

The article can be found here: http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf
 
I believe healthcare is a necessity. I have added it to my healthcare list. This is my proposal for healthcare

  1. Necessity: Healthcare is a necessity for a well functioning society, designed along the lines of compulsory education.
  2. States Rights: Each state should implement their own healthcare coverage. Some will choose single payer. Others will have a regulated market.
  3. Coverage: Everyone is covered - no exclusion for pre-existing conditions.
  4. Affordability: no one should have to pay too much - put the high-cost patients in a large enough actuarial group to spread the cost.
  5. Innovation: Protect the free enterprise nature of the industry - not so much the insurance companies, but the drug companies, hospitals, research labs, equipment/device companies.
  6. Funding: There is some federal tax dollars given to those states who implement compulsory healthcare and there are state taxes which pay for it.
  7. Medicaid and Medicare: Remain federal programs for those states that do not adopt compulsory healthcare, become part of the state program for those states that do adopt compulsory healthcare. The federal funds will go to the state.
 
reefedjib said:
I believe healthcare is a necessity. I have added it to my healthcare list. This is my proposal for healthcare

  1. Necessity: Healthcare is a necessity for a well functioning society, designed along the lines of compulsory education.
  2. States Rights: Each state should implement their own healthcare coverage. Some will choose single payer. Others will have a regulated market.
  3. Coverage: Everyone is covered - no exclusion for pre-existing conditions.
  4. Affordability: no one should have to pay too much - put the high-cost patients in a large enough actuarial group to spread the cost.
  5. Innovation: Protect the free enterprise nature of the industry - not so much the insurance companies, but the drug companies, hospitals, research labs, equipment/device companies.
  6. Funding: There is some federal tax dollars given to those states who implement compulsory healthcare and there are state taxes which pay for it.
  7. Medicaid and Medicare: Remain federal programs for those states that do not adopt compulsory healthcare, become part of the state program for those states that do adopt compulsory healthcare. The federal funds will go to the state.
Click to expand...

For the sake of avoiding another monopsony and/or further bailouts; private insurers cannot be forced to insure high risk applicants unless federally subsidized.
 
reefedjib said:
I believe healthcare is a necessity. I have added it to my healthcare list. This is my proposal for healthcare

Necessity: Healthcare is a necessity for a well functioning society, designed along the lines of compulsory education.
Click to expand...
As noted before, this is where your argument fails.
We have a well-functioning society w/o your plan for heath care in place.
Thus, there's no necessity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom