• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do We Need National Health Care?

Do We Need National Health Care?


  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I want a general idea of how you feel about our current Health Care situation. Please vote and explain.
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I believe we need National Health bad, people cannot afford the premiums or the deductibles and it is just getting discharged in bankruptcies.
 

ptsdkid

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
1,704
Reaction score
10
Location
New Hampshire
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
alphieb said:
I believe we need National Health bad, people cannot afford the premiums or the deductibles and it is just getting discharged in bankruptcies.


***Do you have a particular socialist medical plan in mind, or are you excited about copying Canada's or the Hillary-Care plan?

Privatizing is the key word. Bush's plan to privatize 6% of Social Security monies makes sense. So would privatizing or investing a portion of earned income into medical accounts. Using or depending on government to baby sit one's every functional need or desire is troubling and dangerous, both economically and socially.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The words "not just no, but HELL NO " come to mind.

Questions for the Pro-Universal Health Care crowd:

Where, specifically, is the federal government granted the power to create any legislation regarding health care?
(Hint: you need to cite the US Constitution)

Why do people think that the government should take care of everyone, all the time, regarding everything?

Why do people think that I, personally, am responsible for providing health care to complete strangers?

How do complete strangers have a right to MY money?
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I voted yes for the obvious benefits it brings
 

ptsdkid

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
1,704
Reaction score
10
Location
New Hampshire
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
An addendum to government inteference with health care:

Where in the Constitution does it say that we must pay to feed, house and clothe anyone that has assumed leech status?
 
H

hipsterdufus

ptsdkid said:
An addendum to government inteference with health care:

Where in the Constitution does it say that we must pay to feed, house and clothe anyone that has assumed leech status?

Yeah man, let them all die the freakin leeches and bloodsuckers!

Oh - time for church brb. :roll:
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ptsdkid said:
An addendum to government inteference with health care:
Where in the Constitution does it say that we must pay to feed, house and clothe anyone that has assumed leech status?

Because I've heard it all before, I can aswer that:

"If you dont have the means to exercise your rights, how can you say you actually have those rights" - or something to that effect.

Of course, this doesn't mean that if you're poor, you can expect the government to provide you with the means to exercise your right to arms. That's different, you see...
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
Yeah man, let them all die the freakin leeches and bloodsuckers!
Oh - time for church brb. :roll:

Isn' t this typical?
Rather than address a legitimate question, make a snide, sarcastic remark.
:bs
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ptsdkid said:
An addendum to government inteference with health care:

Where in the Constitution does it say that we must pay to feed, house and clothe anyone that has assumed leech status?

What does welfare, which you are referring to have to do with NHC?
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Goobieman said:
The words "not just no, but HELL NO " come to mind.

Questions for the Pro-Universal Health Care crowd:

Where, specifically, is the federal government granted the power to create any legislation regarding health care?
(Hint: you need to cite the US Constitution)

Why do people think that the government should take care of everyone, all the time, regarding everything?

Why do people think that I, personally, am responsible for providing health care to complete strangers?

How do complete strangers have a right to MY money?

First of all who said this has anything to do with the constitution. Believe or not this outrageous so called health care system of ours is dragging the middle class down and in turn hurting our economy. How would you be personally responsible for "strangers" when you would benefit from it to? Having said that, do you have health insurance? I bet your premium out weighs what you would pay in taxes. $400.00 per month per family plan is outrageous. You must be single.
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ptsdkid said:
***Do you have a particular socialist medical plan in mind, or are you excited about copying Canada's or the Hillary-Care plan?

Privatizing is the key word. Bush's plan to privatize 6% of Social Security monies makes sense. So would privatizing or investing a portion of earned income into medical accounts. Using or depending on government to baby sit one's every functional need or desire is troubling and dangerous, both economically and socially.

Yes, I do in fact favor Canada's plan. Medical savings account, what a joke. I bet that will work as well as HMOs. The government was created to assist and lead the American people. The republicans are not for democracy.
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
hipsterdufus said:
Yeah man, let them all die the freakin leeches and bloodsuckers!

Oh - time for church brb. :roll:

No kidding, every person at one time or another needs help. If you turn your back that is nothing but cold selfishness.
 

ptsdkid

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
1,704
Reaction score
10
Location
New Hampshire
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
alphieb said:
What does welfare, which you are referring to have to do with NHC?

***No need to play semantics here. NHC is government sponsored, i.e. the tax paying people pay for it. Just like the tax payers pay for food stamps and welfare checks etc. Subsidized housing and W.I.C. programs are also derivatives of the entire welfare boondoggle. I could name more, but you get the message.
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ptsdkid said:
***No need to play semantics here. NHC is government sponsored, i.e. the tax paying people pay for it. Just like the tax payers pay for food stamps and welfare checks etc. Subsidized housing and W.I.C. programs are also derivatives of the entire welfare boondoggle. I could name more, but you get the message.

No I don't get the message. You would benefit as well from NHC. How is that comparable to welfare? Just like what you pay into SS, you get back. Have you ever had an illness that racked up thousands in Med. bills. I'm sure if you had, you would have a different stance. GOOD LUCK
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ptsdkid said:
An addendum to government inteference with health care:

Where in the Constitution does it say that we must pay to feed, house and clothe anyone that has assumed leech status?

Since you brought this up, even though off the subject, lets say family A is hard on their luck with no jobs or food for one reason or another. They have three kids that are starving, so they turn to the system for assitance. Those three kids grow up get an education and contribute greatly to the economy.

Had they not had that assistance, maybe they would have died of starvation. Are you telling me that you would rather see that? Your ideas are not only cold but lack common sense.
 

ptsdkid

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
1,704
Reaction score
10
Location
New Hampshire
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Advantages of (HSA) Health Savings Accounts:

SECURITY: Your high deductible insurance and HAS protect you against high unexpected medical bills.

AFFORDABILITY: You should be able to lower health insurance premiums by switching to health insurance coverage with a higher deductible.

FLEXIBILITY: You can use the funds in your account to pay for current medical costs including expenses that your insurance may not cover, or save the money in escrow for future needs, such as:

* Health insurance or medical expenses if unemployed
* Medical expenses after retirement (before Medicare)
* Out-of-pocket expenses when covered by Medicare
* Long-term care expenses and insurance

SAVINGS You can save the money in your account for future expenses or grow your account through investment earnings.

CONTROL: You make all the decisions about:

* How much money to put into the account (with in the maximum annual allowances)
* Whether to save the account for future expenses or pay current medical expenses
* Which medical expenses to pay from the account
* Which company/bank will hold the account
* Whether to invest any of the money in the account
* Which investments to make

PORTABILITY: Accounts are completely portable, meaning you can keep your account whenever you:

*change jobs
* Change your medical coverage
* Become unemployed
* Move to another state
* Change your marital status

OWNERSHIP: Funds remain in the account from year to year, just like an IRA, there are no use it or lose it rule for HAS’s.

TAX SAVINGS: An HSA provides you triple tax savings:

* tax deductions when you contribute to your account
* tax-free earnings through investment
* tax-free withdrawals for qualified medical expenses.

The problems with a National Health Care program are numerous. But the problem with those proposing a Hillary-care type program is that the liberals’ feel the need (almost their obligation) to have big government take care of everyone. Liberals are against capitalism, against investing, against making money in any way, and believe that Americans in general cannot think and act for themselves. Most Americans would agree with me, that we would rather have control over our investments and over our own privatized accounts concerning health, food, employment, housing or whatever else we deem important.
 

DivineComedy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My wife just got hit with a huge bill we can’t pay for being sent to the wrong place for treatment, and nobody caught it, but now we have to PAY and the insurance will NOT pay, since this is not the only time this has happened to our detriment, if the private industry can’t get their damn act together, I am fed up, I say YES!
 

DeeJayH

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,728
Reaction score
1,688
Location
Scooping Zeus' Poop
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
absolutely not
it would cripple the economy of the US just as it has the nations that have it.
safety nets....absolutely
but i do not want the govt in charge of my healthcare
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
ptsdkid said:
***Do you have a particular socialist medical plan in mind, or are you excited about copying Canada's or the Hillary-Care plan?

Privatizing is the key word. Bush's plan to privatize 6% of Social Security monies makes sense. So would privatizing or investing a portion of earned income into medical accounts. Using or depending on government to baby sit one's every functional need or desire is troubling and dangerous, both economically and socially.
You poor misguided sheep. You're a real posterboy for the GOP.
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ptsdkid said:
Advantages of (HSA) Health Savings Accounts:

SECURITY: Your high deductible insurance and HAS protect you against high unexpected medical bills.

AFFORDABILITY: You should be able to lower health insurance premiums by switching to health insurance coverage with a higher deductible.

FLEXIBILITY: You can use the funds in your account to pay for current medical costs including expenses that your insurance may not cover, or save the money in escrow for future needs, such as:

* Health insurance or medical expenses if unemployed
* Medical expenses after retirement (before Medicare)
* Out-of-pocket expenses when covered by Medicare
* Long-term care expenses and insurance

SAVINGS You can save the money in your account for future expenses or grow your account through investment earnings.

CONTROL: You make all the decisions about:

* How much money to put into the account (with in the maximum annual allowances)
* Whether to save the account for future expenses or pay current medical expenses
* Which medical expenses to pay from the account
* Which company/bank will hold the account
* Whether to invest any of the money in the account
* Which investments to make

PORTABILITY: Accounts are completely portable, meaning you can keep your account whenever you:

*change jobs
* Change your medical coverage
* Become unemployed
* Move to another state
* Change your marital status

OWNERSHIP: Funds remain in the account from year to year, just like an IRA, there are no use it or lose it rule for HAS’s.

TAX SAVINGS: An HSA provides you triple tax savings:

* tax deductions when you contribute to your account
* tax-free earnings through investment
* tax-free withdrawals for qualified medical expenses.

The problems with a National Health Care program are numerous. But the problem with those proposing a Hillary-care type program is that the liberals’ feel the need (almost their obligation) to have big government take care of everyone. Liberals are against capitalism, against investing, against making money in any way, and believe that Americans in general cannot think and act for themselves. Most Americans would agree with me, that we would rather have control over our investments and over our own privatized accounts concerning health, food, employment, housing or whatever else we deem important.


Sure, that sounds great, but is it realistic?, absolutely not.

Cheaper premiums for higher deductible?

Doesn't that defeat the purpose. Those HIGH deductibles will kill you financially.

Medical Savings Accounts?

How many people are disciplined enough to adhere to that. People have a hard enough time paying bills and putting food on the table. If everyone could afford that our health care system would not be an issue. Afterall, it is an issue of affordability.

Oh yeah, this is Bush's plan, enough said.
 

earthworm

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
5,728
Reaction score
904
Location
Goldsboro,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
alphieb said:
I want a general idea of how you feel about our current Health Care situation. Please vote and explain.
No vote again, I do not care for the options.
I do know that Blue Cross/Blue Shield are extremely expensive and , as a result ,wasteful.

Medical insurance, or any insurance are inefficient and promote unneeded treatment and procedures, IMO..

On that basis we should revert to the old system , NO INSURANCE !, instead pay as you go, and pay only for what you need - no more no less....But this only works for the responsible man who is smart and careful, and lucky.
With more insurance, and more "someone else pay", anyone but me, the medical price increases, and some one ultimately pays.

I believe that people should spend at least several hundred per year on their own maintenance, each and every year of their life. Then they should have a "catastrophic account" to cover serious medical emergencies....
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
DeeJayH said:
absolutely not
it would cripple the economy of the US just as it has the nations that have it.
safety nets....absolutely
but i do not want the govt in charge of my healthcare

How exactly would it hurt our economy? Don't you think the millions filing medical bankruptcy and throwing in their credit cards with it is hurting our economy? How about those through the roof premiums? That is taking money out of pockets that could be put back into the economy instead of some greedy doctor's pocket.
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
earthworm said:
No vote again, I do not care for the options.
I do know that Blue Cross/Blue Shield are extremely expensive and , as a result ,wasteful.

Medical insurance, or any insurance are inefficient and promote unneeded treatment and procedures, IMO..

On that basis we should revert to the old system , NO INSURANCE !, instead pay as you go, and pay only for what you need - no more no less....But this only works for the responsible man who is smart and careful, and lucky.
With more insurance, and more "someone else pay", anyone but me, the medical price increases, and some one ultimately pays.

I believe that people should spend at least several hundred per year on their own maintenance, each and every year of their life. Then they should have a "catastrophic account" to cover serious medical emergencies....

Oh really, how many people do you know that are capable of doing that?
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
alphieb said:
How exactly would it hurt our economy? Don't you think the millions filing medical bankruptcy and throwing in their credit cards with it is hurting our economy? How about those through the roof premiums? That is taking money out of pockets that could be put back into the economy instead of some greedy doctor's pocket.
Correction, greedy health insurance company's pocket.
This government today (R and D's alike) is by far the most coorperatly controled out of any former governmental body since Carter. No where in the history of the US has there ever been a case then the government has been so deep in the pockets of pharmaceuticals and energy companies.
Specifically to pharmaceuticals, if people don't get sick, how do these companies make a profit?
I saw an ad the other day for a drug that prevents rapid leg movement. That movement is typically a sign to get your lazy *** off the couch and do something like excersize, and now there's a pill to prevent it? Bull$hit.
If there were governmentally controlled National health care covereage in the US like the rest of the industrialized world, these insurance companies as well as several pharmeceuticals will be going out of business.
 
Top Bottom