• 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 support single-payer health care?

Do you support single-payer health care?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 43.7%
  • No

    Votes: 36 50.7%
  • Maybe, if

    Votes: 4 5.6%

  • Total voters
    71

gabehwkns

Banned
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
58
Reaction score
11
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I'm curious how many people on this forum support single-payer health care and why or why not. I understand that there are many small groups of people spread out over the United States that support single-payer, but they aren't able to make much noise.

So, do you support single-payer health care, and why or why not?
 
It's none of the government's business.
 
Yes, I do. People make too much of an issue over whether or not people have health insurance when what they need is healthcare. Having a large portion of society who can only obtain healthcare in emergencies is not only a drain on our national productivity, it's a national security issue.
 
To be honest, I don't know what solution I prefer. I don't like single-payer because I don't think the government should be involved in taxing and paying for healthcare.

I do think everyone should be covered, and for more than just emergencies.

But I don't like this idea of sending you to prison if you don't pay for health-care (or insurance if that's the vehicle of payment). I think you should be able to select care on the open market. I don't think pre-existing conditions should apply.

I don't know the answer, maybe single-payer is the way to go, but I just think the government will **** it up.
 
I am not against it in theory, but I do not think now is the time to do it.
 
NO. Less government, not more.
 
The government has proven they're not competent enough to run such a system, so no. If we could do it in a way that didn't involve government intervention, maybe, depending on the system.
 
Absolutely. There are certain basic things that a government should exist for. Healthcare should be one of them.

We don't require people to show fire insurance when the fire department is called out. Can you imagine if the police only responded to those who purchased some type of insurance?

It is completely immoral in a country such as the United States for people to go hungry or not receive basic healthcare.
 
I have a different apprach. I think that insurance companies should not cover for instance the first 1000 dollars of expenses. This will bring some competition into the american health system and bring down the prices, because today people don't care about the prices of what they get from their insurance.

I also believe that the government should provide health care for those in need. However, I am not a supporter of government health care, because in often ends up with huge lines, and bad expensive care.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, I don't know what solution I prefer. I don't like single-payer because I don't think the government should be involved in taxing and paying for healthcare.

I do think everyone should be covered, and for more than just emergencies.

But I don't like this idea of sending you to prison if you don't pay for health-care (or insurance if that's the vehicle of payment). I think you should be able to select care on the open market. I don't think pre-existing conditions should apply.

I don't know the answer, maybe single-payer is the way to go, but I just think the government will **** it up.

I agree.

I think the government needs to provide a means by which the common citizen can obtain healthcare. Big insurance has completely corrupted the current system.

I think laws need to be created which effectively terminate the license of any medical doctor who gets caught working for a medical insurance provider. Insurance companies do not need to have a group of hired guns on their payroll.

Insurance companies need to be banned from decided what will be covered, who needs what, and how often medication can be dispensed.

It's time to take the business out of healthcare.

Big insurance is opposed to to having a government option because they do not want to have to compete against the government. Well ... TOO DAMN BAD... If they were less corrupt, this situation would never have occurred.
 
I agree.

I think the government needs to provide a means by which the common citizen can obtain healthcare. Big insurance has completely corrupted the current system.

I think laws need to be created which effectively terminate the license of any medical doctor who gets caught working for a medical insurance provider. Insurance companies do not need to have a group of hired guns on their payroll.

Insurance companies need to be banned from decided what will be covered, who needs what, and how often medication can be dispensed.

It's time to take the business out of healthcare.

Big insurance is opposed to to having a government option because they do not want to have to compete against the government. Well ... TOO DAMN BAD... If they were less corrupt, this situation would never have occurred.
We must not forget that not everything is perfect in countries with government health care either. Very long waiting lines, especially for special treatments that the average Joe doesn't need. Want to get psychological treatment, fine, but you will need to wait one and a half year. Also, many have experienced that the treatment they get have not been of a good quality. That's because users can't choose what place to go.

To make a good health care system we will need to make sure that everyone get basic health care, and that we get competition so that the service provided is good and that there's no lines. I think you all should watch this
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I"]YouTube- John Stossel - Sick in America - Part 1 (of 6)[/ame]

The reason why insurance companies can't compete against the government is because it's hard to compete against a free service.
 
We must not forget that not everything is perfect in countries with government health care either. Very long waiting lines, especially for special treatments that the average Joe doesn't need. Want to get psychological treatment, fine, but you will need to wait one and a half year. Also, many have experienced that the treatment they get have not been of a good quality. That's because users can't choose what place to go.

To make a good health care system we will need to make sure that everyone get basic health care, and that we get competition so that the service provided is good and that there's no lines. I think you all should watch this
YouTube- John Stossel - Sick in America - Part 1 (of 6)

The reason why insurance companies can't compete against the government is because it's hard to compete against a free service.

If those people were more honest, this issue would never have come about.
 
Absolutely not.

First, insulating the consumer from the cost of the goods/services he receives only raises those costs.

Second, I have absolutely no responsibility to cover the health care costs of others.
 
It is completely immoral in a country such as the United States for people to go hungry or not receive basic healthcare.
Who are you to impose your version of morality onto others?
 
Absolutely, so long as the single payer is the patient.

Married patients should pay their own way too.

Ain't no reason at all why my tax dollars should be stolen to pay for the health care of total strangers, or even people I know but don't like that much.

And I'm perfectly able to kick in for the people I can tolerate without resorting to taxation, thank you.

Haven't you socialists ever heard of charity?

Guess what? Taxpayer financed programs aren't charities.
 
Yes, I do. People make too much of an issue over whether or not people have health insurance when what they need is healthcare. Having a large portion of society who can only obtain healthcare in emergencies is not only a drain on our national productivity, it's a national security issue.

So the people who refuse to get insurance are threats to the nation's security?

Why, they should be either deported or put in jail until they're covered, right?
 
It is completely immoral in a country such as the United States for people to go hungry or not receive basic healthcare.

It's completely immoral to be a socialist.

That doesn't stop you people, though.

Explain why you keep more of the money you earned than the national poverty level. Explain why you greedily refuse to contribute your ill gotten wealth to help the poor and disadvantaged.

Then come back and explain why you can't volutnarily donate to support your cause but claim it's moral to steal my money instead.
 
Yes, I do. People make too much of an issue over whether or not people have health insurance when what they need is health care.Strongly agree Having a large portion of society who can only obtain health care in emergencies is not only a drain on our national productivity, it's a national security issue.This is a stretch
I'd prefer that the old "health care" insurance companies go away...They may have served a purpose at one time, but service was replaced by greed.
Health care must be financed in the most efficient manner.
This "single payer" seems to be it.
 
The government has proven they're not competent enough to run such a system, so no.

:confused: When has our government ever operated a national healthcare system?

Beyond this, if you believe our government is so astoundingly incompetent, it must follow that you support disbanding our military, tearing up our interstate highway and rail systems, removing ourselves from international trade/monetary systems, etc.

:roll:
 
I'd prefer that the old "health care" insurance companies go away...They may have served a purpose at one time, but service was replaced by greed.
Health care must be financed in the most efficient manner.
This "single payer" seems to be it.

This pretty much sums up my feelings. 'For profit' health insurance is inefficient. Everyone involved would pay less if the company didn't need to show a profit every quarter.

I'd rather it wasn't run by the government though, but unfortunately I don't see a lot of other options.
 
This pretty much sums up my feelings. 'For profit' health insurance is inefficient. Everyone involved would pay less if the company didn't need to show a profit every quarter.
Without the profit motive, the compnay (and then, the service it provides) doesnt exist.
 
This pretty much sums up my feelings. 'For profit' health insurance is inefficient. Everyone involved would pay less if the company didn't need to show a profit every quarter.

I'd rather it wasn't run by the government though, but unfortunately I don't see a lot of other options.

Actually, I will say the opposite. Without profits, companies are inefficient. that's because they have nothing to work for, because they are not competing against anyone. In reality profits is only a small part of the enormous sums transfered in the company every year. It won't make a difference, efficiency is the key.

The problem with the US health care system is that we are not getting competition. It's like taking the worst parts of each system and putting them together. To get the competition we need, we will need to make users liable for some of the fees. Then people will start concerning about the prices, which will make the health industry compete making their service more efficient.
 
Last edited:
Without the profit motive, the compnay (and then, the service it provides) doesnt exist.

Uh oh, I better stop my charitable donations. Most are to non-profit organizations, but according to you, those don't exist, so someone must be ripping me off.
 
Uh oh, I better stop my charitable donations. Most are to non-profit organizations, but according to you, those don't exist, so someone must be ripping me off.
I never stated that NPOs dont exist.
But, the companies that provide health insurance are not NPOs.
 
It's completely immoral to be a socialist.

That doesn't stop you people, though.

Explain why you keep more of the money you earned than the national poverty level. Explain why you greedily refuse to contribute your ill gotten wealth to help the poor and disadvantaged.

Then come back and explain why you can't volutnarily donate to support your cause but claim it's moral to steal my money instead.

No one's talking about "stealing" anyones money...any more than government exists to provide police and fire protection. Do you view that as "stealing" your money.
Would you advocate for a system where people don't get fire protection or police response unless they buy-into that protection?
 
Back
Top Bottom