• 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!

Would you rather....

Would you rather


  • Total voters
    13

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Would you rather people be forced to pay for the costs they incur or you be forced to pay for those who refuse to cover their own costs?
 
Push poll is pushy.

OC, if you're so against paying other people's health care costs, I assume you are against the subsidies in the health care bill? Not to mention the public option/single payer?
 
Hmmm... what could this thread be about. Could it be health care?
 
Push poll is pushy.

Describe were the poll is wrong. Either we allow people not to partake and therefore be forced to pay for their costs, or we force them to pay for their costs. There is no middle ground here.

OC, if you're so against paying other people's health care costs, I assume you are against the subsidies in the health care bill?

To a degree yes. However, at least the subsidies get people on board into the system.

Not to mention the public option/single payer?

A single payer is not inherently a bad idea. Single payer isn't related to my concern here about people not paying for their costs. As for a public option, I don't like it from that position, but I see it could be rather useful in forcing insurance to actually compete. You know, actually spend more money rather then funnel profits into investments that are unrelated to their actual practice? There's a reason on the cash flow statement of many insurance providers, there's a big inflow and outflow in investing activities. Insurance profits are much higher when you account for money they are using to buy securities.
 
Pssh, it's about formula 1 race cars, come in to the 21st century. :2razz:

I wouldn't know about such things. I live in the 24th Century. I'm just visiting, here. :2razz:
 
Indeed. If you can't figure that out, god help you.

What I don't get is this notion that people think there is a middle ground.

As with many polls that try to attack an issue as complex as this one, yours creates a false dichotomy. The problem is in the word "refuse". Why did you choose that word rather than the word "don't" or "can't"?
 
As with many polls that try to attack an issue as complex as this one, yours creates a false dichotomy. The problem is in the word "refuse". Why did you choose that word rather than the word "don't" or "can't"?

I don't see how this particular part is complex. We either force people to cover their costs or we pay for those who won't. From a personal responsibility angle, it is wrong to force those who will to cover the costs of those who won't while absolving those who won't of any responsibility.

As for those who can't, the rest of us are going to be paying for them either way, therefore they are quite irrelevant.
 
Describe were the poll is wrong. Either we allow people not to partake and therefore be forced to pay for their costs, or we force them to pay for their costs. There is no middle ground here.

There's lots of middle ground. Not too long ago nobody had insurance; everyone payed out of their own pockets. That's really the only way to make sure that absolutely everyone pays for their own health care costs, because the very nature of insurance is paying for other people's costs - risk sharing. Even if there were no uninsured people at all, there would still be those who don't need very much health care paying for the costs of those who do via premiums (especially if insurers are forced to cover those with pre-existing conditions).

To a degree yes. However, at least the subsidies get people on board into the system.

A single payer is not inherently a bad idea. Single payer isn't related to my concern here about people not paying for their costs. As for a public option, I don't like it from that position, but I see it could be rather useful in forcing insurance to actually compete. You know, actually spend more money rather then funnel profits into investments that are unrelated to their actual practice? There's a reason on the cash flow statement of many insurance providers, there's a big inflow and outflow in investing activities. Insurance profits are much higher when you account for money they are using to buy securities.

I remember when the whole the-insured-pay-for-the-costs-of-the-uninsured thing was brought into being as an issue, and quickly ceased to be one, and I think that this is exactly why. It looks mighty hypocritical to say that people should have to pay for their own health care, and then support premiums and a public option and a single payer system.
 
There's lots of middle ground. Not too long ago nobody had insurance; everyone payed out of their own pockets.

And that was when health care costs didn't bankrupt people in one swoop. Not exactly a valid comparison.

That's really the only way to make sure that absolutely everyone pays for their own health care costs, because the very nature of insurance is paying for other people's costs - risk sharing. Even if there were no uninsured people at all, there would still be those who don't need very much health care paying for the costs of those who do via premiums (especially if insurers are forced to cover those with pre-existing conditions).

Except that you are discussing a period in which average health care didn't eat entire pay checks at once. Essentially you comparing apples with oranges. Back in Roman times.....

I remember when the whole the-insured-pay-for-the-costs-of-the-uninsured thing was brought into being as an issue, and quickly ceased to be one, and I think that this is exactly why. It looks mighty hypocritical to say that people should have to pay for their own health care, and then support premiums and a public option and a single payer system.

Come again? A public option would be hypocritical. However, a single payer system doesn't logically fit your argument. Just because a single payer pays doesn't equate to people not covering their costs.
 
Except that you are discussing a period in which average health care didn't eat entire pay checks at once. Essentially you comparing apples with oranges. Back in Roman times.....

And I realize that. Are you going to address my actual point now?
 
Quote by Obvious Child(Insurance profits are much higher when you account for money they are using to buy securities.)


Presumably not American treasury security's eh?
 
And I realize that. Are you going to address my actual point now?

What point?

Your point that in times inapplicable to now people could pay for their costs?

What kind of point is that?

Okay, back in Greece....

Your post is irrelevant.
 
What point?

Your point that in times inapplicable to now people could pay for their costs?

What kind of point is that?

Okay, back in Greece....

Your post is irrelevant.

You missed my point, which is that as long as insurance exists (and I'm not saying that it shouldn't exist), people are going to pay for other people's health care costs. This is what insurance is. So saying that mandating people to buy insurance is the only way to stop people from paying for the health care costs of others is false. Even if such a mandate existed, insured people who need little health care will be paying for the health care of insured people who need more. In fact, forcing people to buy insurance will create an even greater amount of paying for the health care of others, since healthy people who chose not to have insurance will be forced to have insurance to pay for the health care of those who need it more badly.
 
I wouldn't know about such things. I live in the 24th Century. I'm just visiting, here. :2razz:

Oh let the sun beat down upon my face
With stars to fill my dream.
I am a traveler of both time and space
To be where I have been.
 
From a personal responsibility angle, it is wrong to force those who will to cover the costs of those who won't while absolving those who won't of any responsibility.

Hell, we've been doing that for around 40-50 years now. It's certainly not a new concept in this country. I agree with what you're saying, but welfare is a cornerstone of our society these days.
 
Hell, we've been doing that for around 40-50 years now. It's certainly not a new concept in this country. I agree with what you're saying, but welfare is a cornerstone of our society these days.

FDR and his administration did a really good job in long term planning--they started a system that was a self generating creator of dem voters--dependent entitlement addicted minions who, due to dem imposed laws-breed much faster than people who wait until they have stabilized their careers before having children.
 
Would you rather people be forced to pay for the costs they incur or you be forced to pay for those who refuse to cover their own costs?

Wonder what evil deed my brother did that caused his pre-teen daughter to become diabetic. Should he be forced to struggle with her medical bills all the rest of his life while insurance company execs get million dollar bonuses for not covering her? Sorry, that's just not American to me.
 
You missed my point, which is that as long as insurance exists (and I'm not saying that it shouldn't exist), people are going to pay for other people's health care costs. This is what insurance is. So saying that mandating people to buy insurance is the only way to stop people from paying for the health care costs of others is false. Even if such a mandate existed, insured people who need little health care will be paying for the health care of insured people who need more. In fact, forcing people to buy insurance will create an even greater amount of paying for the health care of others, since healthy people who chose not to have insurance will be forced to have insurance to pay for the health care of those who need it more badly.

Exactly. Forcing everyone to be insured does not do anything to reduce healthcare costs for anybody. Its the additional risk that is assumed that will make rates go up for everyone. Unlike auto insurance, where people who drive piss poor typically pay more into the overall pool, our health insurance industry is largely employer driven, which means that the more sickly pay the same rate as a healthy individual. If we could unstick the healthcare benefit from employers and make it an individual purchase it would uncomplicate the issue immensely. Those who are sick would pay their fair share for their policies.

We don't need single payer, because it would have to be government run and if the government, in the throes of budgetary concerns, decides to cut reimbursement rates to clinics for treatment, then a healthcare provider has nowhere to turn to compete with those rates and keep their business running. They are stuck with whatever rate the gov. gives them. I know it would cut down on administrative costs, but you know what they say about having all your eggs in one basket. Thats what single payer is.
 
We (the US) recently passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it. It was passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, and signed by a president that also is exempt from it, hasn't read it, and who smokes. It is paid for with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke. Is there a problem?

No! The only problem we have is with people that believe this kind of crap.
 
Back
Top Bottom