• 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
vvx said:
That's my point - the current system already forces me to pay for the healthcare of others.
Click to expand...
Then doing anything other than ceasing this practice makes no sense.
 
Goobieman said:
Then doing anything other than ceasing this practice makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just let people suffer, and the standard of living in the US will surly increase:roll:
 
molten_dragon said:
How exactly do you plan to go about stopping that practice then?
Click to expand...

His response depends entirely on whether Rush discusses the notion in his show today.
 
molten_dragon said:
How exactly do you plan to go about stopping that practice then?
Click to expand...
Simple. No longer force health care providers to provide their goods and servces regardlss of the patient's ability to pay.

They may CHOOSE to do so, but they then assume the risk of doing so w/o compensation.
 
Goobieman said:
Simple. No longer force health care providers to provide their goods and servces regardlss of the patient's ability to pay.

They may CHOOSE to do so, but they then assume the risk of doing so w/o compensation.
Click to expand...

It might work, but I just can't see it working large scale for 3 reasons.

First off, most doctors are doctors because they care about people. I'm sure there are some that just do it for the money or prestige, but most of them truly want to make sick people better, and I can't see many doctors just standing by and leaving someone sick or injured or dying just because they don't have the money to pay.

Secondly, hospitals aren't going to want to let people suffer because they can't pay either. It would get the hospitals lots of bad press, and they can avoid it by doing exactly what they do today, treat the people anyway and pass the costs on to the paying customers.

And last, in truly life-threatening situations, there's not time (and often no feasible way) to find out if someone is capable of paying or not. And the consequences of letting someone die because you were trying to determine whether they could pay you for saving their life or not would be dire.

I'll agree that it will probably reduce the amount of people who come to the emergency room for minor things (that they should have gone to a doctor for) and can't pay. But I think it's going to do very little to stop the people who have true emergencies and can't pay but get treated anyway.
 
I would say that i disagree because it is not in anyones best interest to go without health care. People should not have the right to go without health care just like they should not have the right to NOT wear a seat belt because it suits them not to.
 
molten_dragon said:
It might work, but I just can't see it working large scale for 3 reasons.
Click to expand...
No offense, but these three resosns were already addressed....

First off, most doctors are doctors because they care about people. I'm sure there are some that just do it for the money or prestige, but most of them truly want to make sick people better, and I can't see many doctors just standing by and leaving someone sick or injured or dying just because they don't have the money to pay.
Click to expand...
As noted, these doctors are free to choose to treat these patients, knowing that they assume the risk of doing so w/o compensation.

Secondly, hospitals aren't going to want to let people suffer because they can't pay either. It would get the hospitals lots of bad press, and they can avoid it by doing exactly what they do today, treat the people anyway and pass the costs on to the paying customers.
Click to expand...
As noted, these hospitals are free to choose to treat these patients, patients, knowing that they assume the risk of doing so w/o compensation.

And last, in truly life-threatening situations, there's not time (and often no feasible way) to find out if someone is capable of paying or not. And the consequences of letting someone die because you were trying to determine whether they could pay you for saving their life or not would be dire.
Click to expand...
Again -- free to treat these patients, knowing that they assume the risk of doing so w/o compensation.
 
Last edited:
SE102 said:
I would say that i disagree because it is not in anyones best interest to go without health care. People should not have the right to go without health care just like they should not have the right to NOT wear a seat belt because it suits them not to.
Click to expand...
Difference is that driving on the road is a privilege given to you by the state, not a right that you have becaue you are an American.
 
Goobieman said:
No offense, but these three resosns were already addressed....


As noted, these doctors are free to choose to treat these patients, knowing that they assume the risk of doing so w/o compensation.


As noted, these hospitals are free to choose to treat these patients, patients, knowing that they assume the risk of doing so w/o compensation.


Again -- free to treat these patients, knowing that they assume the risk of doing so w/o compensation.
Click to expand...

But if they do choose to assume the risk of doing so without compensation, which I suspect a majority of them will, they're just going to pass the increased cost back to the consumer, and you're still going to be paying for other people's health care. I don't really see how that fixes the problem.
 
molten_dragon said:
But if they do choose to assume the risk of doing so without compensation, which I suspect a majority of them will, they're just going to pass the increased cost back to the consumer...
Click to expand...
Part of the 'choosing to assume the risk' is that you do NOT do that.
If you dont get paid, you do not get paid -- that was your choice when you took on a patient you knew could not pay (or befor eyou determined his ability to do so).
 
Goobieman said:
Part of the 'choosing to assume the risk' is that you do NOT do that.
If you dont get paid, you do not get paid -- that was your choice when you took on a patient you knew could not pay (or befor eyou determined his ability to do so).
Click to expand...

Fair enough I suppose, but they won't do it by choice.

Why refuse treatment to people and get the bad publicity (and dissension within the ranks of doctors) when you can just treat them anyway and charge the paying customers?

Do you plan on somehow forcing them to behave in the way you want them to? If so, how do you plan to go about doing that?
 
molten_dragon said:
Fair enough I suppose, but they won't do it by choice.
Click to expand...
Well, if they exercise their choice to not treat people in case they do not get paid, that's fine. If they decide to treat the patient and bill you for it, they are acting outside their rights, and violating yours.

Why refuse treatment to people and get the bad publicity (and dissension within the ranks of doctors) when you can just treat them anyway and charge the paying customers?
Click to expand...
Seems pretty obvious to me -- those customers did not receive the goods/services they are being charged for.
Why do you find it acceptable that they charge you for these things?

Do you plan on somehow forcing them to behave in the way you want them to? If so, how do you plan to go about doing that?
Click to expand...
If necessary, yes, through whatever regulation is necessary. I'm sure I could come up with a way to do that, given time.
 
Goobieman said:
Well, if they exercise their choice to not treat people in case they do not get paid, that's fine. If they decide to treat the patient and bill you for it, they are acting outside their rights, and violating yours.


Seems pretty obvious to me -- those customers did not receive the goods/services they are being charged for.
Why do you find it acceptable that they charge you for these things?


If necessary, yes, through whatever regulation is necessary. I'm sure I could come up with a way to do that, given time.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a little bit hypocritical coming from a conservative? I thought your mantra was less government and let the market do what it will do?
 
molten_dragon said:
Isn't that a little bit hypocritical coming from a conservative? I thought your mantra was less government and let the market do what it will do?
Click to expand...
Allowing providers (of anything) to charge people for products and services they do not receive violates free market principles.

Why do you find it acceptable that your doctor charges you for these things?
 
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...

The problem with this is that it doesn't take into consideration that the poor are more likely to be sick because they can not afford healthier lifestyles. If hospitals are allowed to refuse people healthcare because they can't pay that just means more sick people, less people able to work and overall a societal crisis. No thanks.
 
Hatuey said:
The problem with this is that it doesn't take into consideration that the poor are more likely to be sick because they can not afford healthier lifestyles.
Click to expand...
Yes it does.

If hospitals are allowed to refuse people healthcare because they can't pay that just means more sick people, less people able to work and overall a societal crisis. No thanks.
Click to expand...
You are free to contibute to charity, if you should see fit.
Do not presume to make that choice for others.
 
Goobieman said:
Yes it does.
Click to expand...

Negative. If it did you wouldn't even begin to think about denying people health care simply because they can not afford it.

You are free to contibute to charity, if you should see fit.
Do not presume to make that choice for others.
Click to expand...

Ah so nothing to provide except the same old tired rhetoric of the me generation.
 
Hatuey said:
Negative. If it did you wouldn't even begin to think about denying people health care simply because they can not afford it.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes I did.
I know exactly what I considered when I came up with what I came up with, and I assure you that this -was- considered.

Ah so nothing to provide except the same old tired rhetoric of the me generation.
Click to expand...
I see you cannot actually counter my point, that you are free to be as 'compassionate' as you find necessary, but have no place to make that same choice for others.
Fair enough.
 
Goobieman said:
Allowing providers (of anything) to charge people for products and services they do not receive violates free market principles.
Click to expand...

It's part of the cost of doing business. Restaurants sometimes buy too much food and some of it goes to waste. They take that into account when setting their prices. Companies that manufacture clothes make mistakes and have to throw a certain portion of the product out, and that cost is rolled into their prices. We pay every day for things that we never see or benefit from, why should health care be any different?

Goobieman said:
Why do you find it acceptable that your doctor charges you for these things?
Click to expand...

Because I feel that letting someone die when it is within the power of society to prevent it is wrong.
 
molten_dragon said:
It's part of the cost of doing business....
Click to expand...
There is also shrinkage, especially due to shoplifting, etc.

There is a difference between an incidental/unpredicatble/unavoiable cost and a cost incurred because of deliberate choices made by the company to provide goods and services to those that cannot pay. The items you describe are not billable goods and services provided to others, but, as you said, the cost of doing business. In the case of health care, someone directly received a specific and definite benefit, in the case of mistake-related waste, they did not.

Because I feel that letting someone die when it is within the power of society to prevent it is wrong.
Click to expand...
This is your -moral- position, a moral choice; while you are free to make that choice, you are not free to impose that choice on others.

I believe that letting people do a lot of things when it is within the power of society to prevent it is wrong -- and I am sure that if I were to argue that the government should prevent these things, you'd be in nits.
 
Last edited:
Whip Comes Down said:
If you don't want to live in a society that values universal health care, you can always go live some where else, boo dog.
Click to expand...
If you want to live in a society that DOES value universal health care, you can always go to France. Bro.
 
Goobieman said:
There is also shrinkage, especially due to shoplifting, etc.

There is a difference between an incidental/unpredicatble/unavoiable cost and a cost incurred because of deliberate choices made by the company to provide goods and services to those that cannot pay. The items you describe are not billable goods and services provided to others, but, as you said, the cost of doing business. In the case of health care, someone directly received a specific and definite benefit, in the case of mistake-related waste, they did not.
Click to expand...

So it's okay that you pay for goods/services that you never receive as long as no one else gets to benefit from them either?

Goobieman said:
This is your -moral- position, a moral choice; while you are free to make that choice, you are not free to impose that choice on others.

I believe that letting people do a lot of things when it is within the power of society to prevent it is wrong -- and I am sure that if I were to argue that the government should prevent these things, you'd be in nits.
Click to expand...

When you really dig down and look at it, all of our laws are a moral position that is being imposed on others. The idea that murder is wrong is a moral position. It's one shared by a great many people, but it's not universal. And yet, that moral position is forced upon everyone in the country. So I would say that yes, we do indeed force a moral position on our citizens.
 
molten_dragon said:
So it's okay that you pay for goods/services that you never receive as long as no one else gets to benefit from them either?
Click to expand...
You asked me to explain the difference, and I did.
Waste/accidental loss is not a goods/service provided to someone else, and so is not example of how we already pay for goods/services provided to someone else.

When you really dig down and look at it, all of our laws are a moral position that is being imposed on others.
Click to expand...
They are not, as I have explained.
They protect our rights, not impose our morality.

The idea that murder is wrong is a moral position.
Click to expand...
It is. But that's not why it is illegal.

So I would say that yes, we do indeed force a moral position on our citizens.
Click to expand...
We do when we say 'we should do this because it is the right thing to do'.
We do not when we say 'this action is probibited because it violates someones' rights'.

Laws against murder fall into the latter; your justificaton for forming others to pay for goods and services they did not receive falls into the former.

As I said, you can argue for the impostion of moraity if you want, but, should you decide to argue against someone that wants to do the same to you, you haven't a shed of credibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom