• 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
Well then, if that's the case, its imposisble to argue that health care is a necessity, as people, on a societal level, are currently more than capable of 'contributing' -- and always have been, even when the idea of 'health care' was making sure you kept warm in the winter.

You might argue that things might be 'better' if something were in place, but, as I suggested before, something that would make things better is a luxury, not a 'necessity'.

No, it's the same as saying that compulsory education should go through the 12th grade instead of the 6th grade. People would be perfectly capable in that case, yet it is deemed better to go to the 12th grade. Why?
 
Mandated by the state and mandated by ethics are different things.
A health care provider must have the choice, and must make that choice knowing that he may not be compensated for his services.

I disagree. If an American citizen calls 911 because they are dying, they need to be treated. If they are incapacitated and can't make that choice, they must be treated. If they have seemingly have no money to pay for ER care, they must be treated. Period. That is the way hospitals operate. I'm not talking about out-patient care or anything else; I'm talking about critical injuries. I am against the far-right/libertarian perspective overriding hundreds of years of medical ethics just because they are against "socialism".

The opt-outs will end up charging the mandated system money anyway, once they suffer critical injuries and their political ideology goes out the window as they seek care. And they WILL. You can only speak for yourself, not the thousands of others who would change their minds in a heartbeat when their lives are in danger.

The idea of opt-outs are fine in principle but in practice they will never work.
 
I disagree. If an American citizen calls 911 because they are dying, they need to be treated. If they are incapacitated and can't make that choice, they must be treated. If they have seemingly have no money to pay for ER care, they must be treated. Period. That is the way hospitals operate.
Yes - at which point, when you treat people that cannot pay, you have two choices:

-Force the health care providers to provide their goods and services for free
-Force others to pay for goods and services they themselves did not receive.

Neither of these are acceptable as they violate the rights of those involved.
 
Yes - at which point, when you treat people that cannot pay, you have two choices:

-Force the health care providers to provide their goods and services for free
-Force others to pay for goods and services they themselves did not receive.

Neither of these are acceptable as they violate the rights of those involved.

Why did you ignore the rest of my post?

You treat those two points as being mutually exclusive, but they're not. The emergency care providers DO provide their costs for free in such instances, which is why prices for services rendered increase for everyone over time, which in turn raises insurance premiums to cover increased costs. Point two takes place because of point one, not instead of it.

With public health insurance, the hospitals never have to worry about a bill not being paid, and the cost of services levels out.

You omitted my point about opt-outs seeking services anyway. Given that hospitals MUST treat all emergency care patients, how do you reconcile the fact that large numbers of opt-outs would still seek care and be treated despite their touted ideology?
 
Why did you ignore the rest of my post?
Because it goes past the point I made, on the assumption that the point you made is valid -- even though it has been challenged, directly.

You treat those two points as being mutually exclusive, but they're not. The emergency care providers DO provide their costs for free in such instances...
Because they are forced to by law. The argument against this has been made, and yet you run right past it.

which is why prices for services rendered increase for everyone over time, which in turn raises insurance premiums to cover increased costs. Point two takes place because of point one, not instead of it.
yes. This is where others are forced to pay for those that cannot.
This is unacceptable as it violates th erights of those forced to pay.

With public health insurance, the hospitals never have to worry about a bill not being paid, and the cost of services levels out.
See above.

You omitted my point about opt-outs seeking services anyway. Given that hospitals MUST treat all emergency care patients...
Because they are forced to by law. The argument against this has been made, and yet you run right past it.
 
Yes - at which point, when you treat people that cannot pay, you have two choices:

-Force the health care providers to provide their goods and services for free
-Force others to pay for goods and services they themselves did not receive.

Neither of these are acceptable as they violate the rights of those involved.

I don't think you can change the first point. Which forces the second point. If the first point is true, someone has to pay for those expenses. Currently it's the other people who obtain services. Moving it to taxpayers doesn't seem any more unfair to me. And in fact, by moving it to other taxpayers, you could allocate some portion of that cost onto the very people who created it.
 
Medical insurance requires that a pool of individuals pay into a central fund, in order to reduce their individual risk of bankruptcy because of illness. Some may never claim, but will have peace of mind. Others may suffer catastrophic illness, but the insurance will cover their costs, even though they may not have paid in that much in premiums. Making the central pot as large as possible covers everybody. Funding through taxation does this.
 
Medical insurance requires that a pool of individuals pay into a central fund, in order to reduce their individual risk of bankruptcy because of illness. Some may never claim, but will have peace of mind. Others may suffer catastrophic illness, but the insurance will cover their costs, even though they may not have paid in that much in premiums. Making the central pot as large as possible covers everybody. Funding through taxation does this.

BINGO!

Now moving all of the high risk applicants across the tax pool, IMHO, reduces market inefficiency in regards to these citizens. However, there is no reason to believe that the risk aversion industry cannot operate efficiently without government intervention.

Call it a perfect mixture;)
 
yes. This is where others are forced to pay for those that cannot.
This is unacceptable as it violates th erights of those forced to pay.

Just out of curiosity, what rights do you believe this violates?

Government run healthcare would be paid for by taxes, and we don't have the right to not pay taxes.

Or does this tie into your belief that providing health care is not a valid function of the government?
 
Because it goes past the point I made, on the assumption that the point you made is valid -- even though it has been challenged, directly.


Because they are forced to by law. The argument against this has been made, and yet you run right past it.


yes. This is where others are forced to pay for those that cannot.
This is unacceptable as it violates th erights of those forced to pay.


See above.


Because they are forced to by law. The argument against this has been made, and yet you run right past it.

The law forcing hospitals to treat ER patients is not going to change just because some are staunchly against mandated health care. Given that, can you now provide rational responses to my arguments? Thanks.
 
I don't think you can change the first point. Which forces the second point.
No, the second point -- indeed, all of this -- is not forced, its a choice.

Currently it's the other people who obtain services. Moving it to taxpayers doesn't seem any more unfair to me.
You dont think its unfair for your doctor to hand you a bill for goods and services that he provided to someone else?
 
Just out of curiosity, what rights do you believe this violates?
Your right to property -- that what you earn is yours, and that no one else has a claim to it that exceeds yours.

Government run healthcare would be paid for by taxes, and we don't have the right to not pay taxes.

Or does this tie into your belief that providing health care is not a valid function of the government?
Absolutely.
 
The law forcing hospitals to treat ER patients is not going to change just because some are staunchly against mandated health care. Given that, can you now provide rational responses to my arguments? Thanks.
All of the responses I provided are rational.
 
Just out of curiosity, what rights do you believe this violates?

Government run healthcare would be paid for by taxes, and we don't have the right to not pay taxes.

We have every right to withhold taxes taken in payment for services the government is not legally allowed to render.

Health is one of those.

That's why socialists have guns.

Or does this tie into your belief that providing health care is not a valid function of the government?

It's not a belief, it's a fact.
 
No, I am talking about society as a whole. The fabric of society is based on the well-being of its citizenry. If they are uneducated, that prevents them from being knowledgeable, if they are sick, that prevents them from working and contributing to society.

They don't have to "contribute" to society. Society has no claim on their lives. The only responsiblity any person has towards "society" is to live their live so they do not become a burden.

Period.

This idea that people have to "contribute" or "give back" to society is just socialist nonsense. The act of living itself and the interactions a man has with others in the course of his work and life, his basic commerce, is all that's needed to measure his influence on those around him, and he is in no way obligated to surrender more to satisfy some elitist's notion of what his "contribution" should be to be considered a "productive" member of society.

If a man chooses to work for the least paying job he can find and spend his off hours slamming beers and watching TV, that's his business, and only his business. And if his lifestyle choice leads him to cirrhosis and diabetes and stroke, that's his problem, and his problem only.

He's under no obligation to pay more taxes to support someone else's health care, just as no one is under any obligation to pay for his.

This is called freedom.

Oh, by the way, since you've probably never heard this before, and I know it's a completely alien thought in the socialist circles you travel in, there's no law stopping you from contributing as much of your own money as you think is moral to help the lower economic echelons. So don't go babbling about WE should be force to pay for the programs you are completely unwilling to finance yourself.

A better analogy would be if the transmission was slipping. You can still go forward, but not as efficiently as you could if the transmission was fixed.

An even better analogy is that cannibalism destroys societies and growth, and that's what socialism is.

I think you should. I am saying that healthcare resembles education and you are objecting to that. What is it about education that you think makes it a necessity?

If by this statement you believe that it's necessary for the federal government to run public schools, you're not only wrong, but the federal financing of public education is in fact a violation of the Constitution.

PARENTS! Those are the people, and they're the only people, who are responsible for ensuring their offspring gets educated. Even Sidney Poitier knows this. Watch the original "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" if you don't believe me.
 
Your position is sound except for one point... and that is doctors refusing treatment in critical ER situations. They must accept patients who are dying of critical injuries. It would be against medical ethics not to. Even a broken bone can be life threatening if it nicks a nearby artery as it shatters, or an allergy that is causing physical distress.

Given that, you would be hard pressed to define what could be considered "critical" and what isn't just based on initial appearance. Tests and reporting are required, as well as observation. This all requires money.

People should not be able to opt out under those grounds, and frankly to assume they could is just arrogant. I think the health care legislation has its flaws, but if it's going to go into practice, then it should encompass everyone. People wanting to opt out mostly don't have medical experience and are doing it from a libertarian perspective; meanwhile they have no way of knowing what medical issues face them down the road.

If you get critically injured, you will WANT care, regardless of what your position was beforehand. People without insurance now still get treated in such circumstances, but they can't pay their bills. This creates a burden on the entire system. That burden can only be plugged with mandated health care.

So, what you're trying to say is that the Emergency Room situation is expensive, so we should nationalize the entire industry because ....well, your argument doesn't actually make any sense.

If ER treatment is expensive, then it's necessary to make people bear the cost of their treatment, since that's how the laws of economics work to reduce the demand on a resource.

The best idea I heard in the last twenty years of health care discussion is the idea of medical savings accounts, in which people can put up to $5000 pre-tax dollars in an account, be it a mutual fund or whatever, their choice, and draw from that account without taxation to pay for medical expenses. Any money they don't spend it theirs to keep, forever, until they die, when it becomes the property of their heirs.

It's their money they're spending, most of them will choose wisely how it's spent. And by the time their in their fifties, when most people start falling apart, they'll have hundreds of thousands of dollars available to treat themselves.

And for those situations where real insurance is needed, people should, but should not be required to, buy a relatively inexpensive catastrophic coverage plan that will handle the emergencies or little cancers that might tap out their savings.

You see, this is how a society that respects human freedom and dignity, you know, a society concerned about real "progress", would encourage its citizens to become responsible self-reliant adults.

And for those that can't afford that basic coverage, we will always have socialists who are so caring about the lives of others that they'll be glad to donate their own time and money to help the poor. If they won't do that, they're just ignorant hypocrites promoting plans for some reason not related to the health and well being of others.
 
We have every right to withhold taxes taken in payment for services the government is not legally allowed to render.

Health is one of those.

That's why socialists have guns.



It's not a belief, it's a fact.

Your right to property -- that what you earn is yours, and that no one else has a claim to it that exceeds yours.


Absolutely.

Fair enough. I think I'll keep the debate on this issue in the other thread.
 
If ER treatment is expensive, then it's necessary to make people bear the cost of their treatment, since that's how the laws of economics work to reduce the demand on a resource.

That won't work though. Most people, when faced with the choice of dying or going to the ER regardless of whether they can pay the bills or not are going to say damn the consequences and go to the ER. The economics of supply and demand don't work so well when people's lives are on the line.

Being realistic, even if there was no law requiring hospitals to treat patients even if they can't pay, it would still happen a lot. Most doctors won't see a dying person and say "sorry, but I can't help you, you have no money", and most hospitals won't require doctors to do it because they don't want the negative publicity. So you'll just end up with the same situation you have now. The hospital treats the patient regardless of their ability to pay, and passes the costs on to their other patients.

This has got me wondering something. I wonder how much extra labor/time/money is spent in hospitals every year treating people who don't see a doctor for something fairly minor because they can't afford it. Then, when it progresses to something serious, they go to the hospital, and it ends up costing 10x (or more) as much as it would have cost had they been able to go to the doctor in the first place.

The best idea I heard in the last twenty years of health care discussion is the idea of medical savings accounts, in which people can put up to $5000 pre-tax dollars in an account, be it a mutual fund or whatever, their choice, and draw from that account without taxation to pay for medical expenses. Any money they don't spend it theirs to keep, forever, until they die, when it becomes the property of their heirs.

It's their money they're spending, most of them will choose wisely how it's spent. And by the time their in their fifties, when most people start falling apart, they'll have hundreds of thousands of dollars available to treat themselves.

And for those situations where real insurance is needed, people should, but should not be required to, buy a relatively inexpensive catastrophic coverage plan that will handle the emergencies or little cancers that might tap out their savings.

You see, this is how a society that respects human freedom and dignity, you know, a society concerned about real "progress", would encourage its citizens to become responsible self-reliant adults.

You know, I kind of agree with this idea. There are some changes I would want before I got fully behind it, but overall, this is a pretty good idea.
 
If healthcare tax was an option would the government be able to afford its short term costs?
 
You dont think its unfair for your doctor to hand you a bill for goods and services that he provided to someone else?

That's my point - the current system already forces me to pay for the healthcare of others. The current system is broken, and needs to be fixed. Moving the costs for the currently uninsured from those who currently pay their medical bills to the taxpayers is not any more unfair. In fact, it's less unfair because a portion of that cost can be collected from tax on the very people who don't pay their medical bills right now.
 
That won't work though. Most people, when faced with the choice of dying or going to the ER regardless of whether they can pay the bills or not are going to say damn the consequences and go to the ER. The economics of supply and demand don't work so well when people's lives are on the line.

The primary problem with this line of thought is that the majority of ER visits are not life and death, but are after-hours clinic services for people who (in many cases)don't want to go to a physician's office, because they don't want to pay.
 
In fact, it's less unfair because a portion of that cost can be collected from tax on the very people who don't pay their medical bills right now.

I would estimate that a large portion of those people currently don't pay any (or pay very little) federal income taxes.
 
The primary problem with this line of thought is that the majority of ER visits are not life and death, but are after-hours clinic services for people who (in many cases)don't want to go to a physician's office, because they don't want to pay.

Number wise I'm sure you're right. I'm not so sure about money-wise though. The people going in just because they don't want to pay to see a doctor aren't really racking up much of a charge (I think the average ER visit is under a thousand dollars). Someone that goes in with a genuine life-threatening injury/illness may end up with a bill for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.
 
The people going in just because they don't want to pay to see a doctor aren't really racking up much of a charge (I think the average ER visit is under a thousand dollars). Someone that goes in with a genuine life-threatening injury/illness may end up with a bill for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Yes, but a doctor's office visit would be much less than a thousand dollars, and many people can't afford a thousand. You can go to a local minor emergency clinic in this area, with an uncomplicated, easily treatable problem (ear infection, bladder infection, etc) for 70 dollars. If you have, say, 10 non-emergent problems in an ER for every true emergency, the ER visits that are not being paid by those treated really adds up, and the cost is being shifted by way of increasing medical costs for those who have insurance. Granted, there is no easy solution, but the ones being proposed by our politicians won't work from what I can see.
 
Yes, but a doctor's office visit would be much less than a thousand dollars, and many people can't afford a thousand. You can go to a local minor emergency clinic in this area, with an uncomplicated, easily treatable problem (ear infection, bladder infection, etc) for 70 dollars. If you have, say, 10 non-emergent problems in an ER for every true emergency, the ER visits that are not being paid by those treated really adds up, and the cost is being shifted by way of increasing medical costs for those who have insurance. Granted, there is no easy solution, but the ones being proposed by our politicians won't work from what I can see.

Right, but what I'm saying is that the people that come in with truly life-threatening emergencies and can't pay stick the hospital a lot more than the ones with minor problems. If one guy comes in after having a major heart attack and can't pay, he might cost the hospital $50,000 (on the low end). That's as much as 50 people coming in for a minor problem. It's also much more likely that measures taken to force him to pay (i.e. wage garnishment, threat of jail time, etc.) will be less likely to work, since he's less likely to be able to pay off the full cost in the rest of his lifetime.

That's one of the reasons I think everyone should have health insurance for truly life-threatening situations, even if it means the government has to provide it at our expense.
 
Back
Top Bottom