• 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.

Get with the program on Prop. 78...

getinvolved

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The California Special Election is fast approaching the choice between Prop.78 and Prop. 79 is a hot topic. It will determine a lot other state's plans and it seems like people are wildly misinformed about 79.

Although, it seems better on paper - 78 is far supereior to 79. Do people not realize that 79 will not go into effect for years, as it will be caught in the courts for years (re: Maine).

Although, it seems more people get health coverage in 79 -- the people that are left out of the drug discounts with 78 are those who make as much as $77,000 annually. Do we really want to risk the health of poor patients in order to provide discounts for people able to afford drugs??

California needs a plan that is going to work NOW. 78 is the answer.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
getinvolved said:
Although, it seems more people get health coverage in 79 -- the people that are left out of the drug discounts with 78 are those who make as much as $77,000 annually. Do we really want to risk the health of poor patients in order to provide discounts for people able to afford drugs??
Why is it OK to take the money of people who worked hard and saved so that they could pay for their own medicines and give it to people who didn't? Why should they not only have to pay for the medicines of those people but also not even get the discount for their own?
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because we have constructed a society that awards those for not trying. Don't work, don't plan and we will have someone else pay for your needs. We do it with multiple handouts and government programs. Why work for what you need when you can just et it from me.
 

getinvolved

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
Why is it OK to take the money of people who worked hard and saved so that they could pay for their own medicines and give it to people who didn't? Why should they not only have to pay for the medicines of those people but also not even get the discount for their own?
I do understand your point and of course as someone who pays a good amount into the system, I would want to get discounts as well. But I think you are forgetting some major factors here. Most people who are in the bracet that is being left out of 78, are already recieving discounts through their company-provided health insurance.

This plan looks like its focus will be taking care of the people stuck in the "gap". People who maketoo much money to be eligible for medicaid, but are in jobs that typically do offer adaquate health insurance (unskilled labor, part-time work, etc.)

Do you not agree we are in desperate need of health care reforms? Here is an opportunity to begin make these reforms, an opportunity that will go into effect immediately. This proposal offers a simple and efficent plan of action for those who truely need it and need it now!
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
getinvolved said:
I do understand your point and of course as someone who pays a good amount into the system, I would want to get discounts as well. But I think you are forgetting some major factors here. Most people who are in the bracet that is being left out of 78, are already recieving discounts through their company-provided health insurance.

This plan looks like its focus will be taking care of the people stuck in the "gap". People who maketoo much money to be eligible for medicaid, but are in jobs that typically do offer adaquate health insurance (unskilled labor, part-time work, etc.)

Do you not agree we are in desperate need of health care reforms? Here is an opportunity to begin make these reforms, an opportunity that will go into effect immediately. This proposal offers a simple and efficent plan of action for those who truely need it and need it now!
Well first all the drug companies offer discounts to those in low income brackets. Do I agree there needs to be reform in the Health Care System? Yes but not the government taking over more responsibilty and cost. Do you realize how much this along with the federal programs are going to cost the working people, then add on what SS funding is going to cost in the future along with other rising intitlement cost. Where is the money going to come from if government is just going to pay for these things for people? There is no cost containment other than the myth that government will use it's buying power to force lower prices. We need a more market oriented system with more competition and more personal responsiblity. And if you do not get yourself educated, you do not do the things in life to provide for yourself you should have no claim on other peoples money to pay for your health care. We have far too many people doing nothing to take care of themselves and then demanding that we, the hard working people, give them health care.
 

getinvolved

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
Well first all the drug companies offer discounts to those in low income brackets. Do I agree there needs to be reform in the Health Care System? Yes but not the government taking over more responsibilty and cost. Do you realize how much this along with the federal programs are going to cost the working people, then add on what SS funding is going to cost in the future along with other rising intitlement cost. Where is the money going to come from if government is just going to pay for these things for people? There is no cost containment other than the myth that government will use it's buying power to force lower prices. We need a more market oriented system with more competition and more personal responsiblity. And if you do not get yourself educated, you do not do the things in life to provide for yourself you should have no claim on other peoples money to pay for your health care. We have far too many people doing nothing to take care of themselves and then demanding that we, the hard working people, give them health care.
The fact remains that these people are in NEED of medication to keep them healthy and/or alive.

I understand where you come from, and I think your logic may be on point when it comes to other issues, but when it comes to health care -- I, for one would like to see something done, NOW. I don't look at this as a frivolous give-away, it's a necessity to people's quality of life.

Granted, we have not found the "perfect plan" anywhere - but as I said before this is a great place to start.

Proposition 78 is a major step in the right direction.
 
Last edited:

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
getinvolved said:
The fact remains that these people are in NEED of medication to keep them healthy and/or alive.
And the fact remains there are lots of ways to get them. My 80 year old blind mother on SS manages to pay for her prescription drugs and gets them at good prices because she bothers to make use of any and all programs available to her.

I understand where you come from, and I think your logic may be on point when it comes to other issues, but when it comes to health care -- I, for one would like to see something done, NOW.
Well it's not going to happen NOW so jumping up and down and stomping your feet won't get you anything. It's a great big dinosaur that has grown out of government interference and the intitlement mentality that has grown in this country that if you had a need then government or someone else is suppose to make sure you are made happy.


I don't look at this as a frivolous give-away, it's a necessity to people's quality of life.
And when did government take over as the provider for people's quality of life? And when did it become a governing principle in this country that if Joe needs something the Sam has to pay for it with his hard work and sweat?
 

getinvolved

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
And the fact remains there are lots of ways to get them. My 80 year old blind mother on SS manages to pay for her prescription drugs and gets them at good prices because she bothers to make use of any and all programs available to her.
You must also keep in mind that this program will help people of all ages. Although your mother has managed to be self-sufficent, which should be applauded -- as it is very difficult with our current system, not all people are able to take advantage of all of the benefits of social security due to age restrictions and certain medications not being covered. Many of these people that will not be helped will end up in our emergency rooms later, and we will end up shouldering the cost anyway.



Well it's not going to happen NOW so jumping up and down and stomping your feet won't get you anything. It's a great big dinosaur that has grown out of government interference and the intitlement mentality that has grown in this country that if you had a need then government or someone else is suppose to make sure you are made happy.
Here you are mistaken. One of the best points about 78 is that if it wins the vote it will not need governmental approval and could go into effect immediately...no jumping up and down and stomping of the feet required. ;) 79 will be stuck in the courts for years, but if you look at the Ohio plan -- it was virtually immediate.

And when did government take over as the provider for people's quality of life? And when did it become a governing principle in this country that if Joe needs something the Sam has to pay for it with his hard work and sweat?
Lastly, with all the money the government throws into various programs, how can we not say that heathcare should be one of our biggest priorities?
 
Last edited:

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
getinvolved said:
You must also keep in mind that this program will help people of all ages. Although your mother has managed to be self-sufficent, which should be applauded -- as it is very difficult with our current system, not all people are able to take advantage of all of the benefits of social security due to age restrictions and certain medications not being covered. Many of these people that will not be helped will end up in our emergency rooms later, and we will end up shouldering the cost anyway.
The restictions on SS are to keep those who can do for themselves from using the system that is designed for those who can't. It is not hard to be self-sufficent in this country if you do several basic things. Take advantage of the education which is offered at no charge, don't get involved in crime, don't get involved in drugs, don't get married until you are well into your twenty's and don't have children out of wedlock.



Lastly, with all the money the government throws into various programs, how can we not say that heathcare should be one of our biggest priorities?
Where did the idea that government, by taking money from one person and giving it to another, should be the provider of medical care? How about taking "all the money the government throws into various programs" and not throwing but letting people keep their money and letting companies keep their money and then we all get our own health care. Which programs do you suggest we not throw money at?
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
And when did government take over as the provider for people's quality of life? And when did it become a governing principle in this country that if Joe needs something the Sam has to pay for it with his hard work and sweat?
Criminals have the right to an attourney. Who do you think pays for that? Children have a right to an education. That enhances quality of life. Should it only be provided if people can afford it?
 

getinvolved

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
The restictions on SS are to keep those who can do for themselves from using the system that is designed for those who can't.
I was under the impression that unless you are above the age of 62 or disabled that you are ineligible for SS. So, I think this plan is aimed at helping people that, for example, may have less severe (non-disabling) conditions that require drugs to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

It is not hard to be self-sufficient in this country if you do several basic things. Take advantage of the education which is offered at no charge, don't get involved in crime, don't get involved in drugs, don't get married until you are well into your twenty's and don't have children out of wedlock.
I have to disagree with you here as well, I used to work for small company that did not provide health insurance and had I needed to buy drugs for asthma, blood pressure, birth control, etc. I'm not sure I would have been able to afford those things. I went to college, I have not committed a crime, I was not married before my mid-twenties, nor do I have children out of wedlock -- the only factors that you name as standing in anyone's way of being self-sufficient.

I think you grossly under estimate/ misunderstand the problems many people face in regard to the price health care, and that fact was made blatantly clear when you list the major things that make people self-sufficient in regard to heath care. :confused:
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
Criminals have the right to an attourney. Who do you think pays for that?
Wait wait wait, you are comparing someone being charged by the government and forced to defend themselves in a courtroom and their right to an attorney with the government giving other people's money to someone wanting a prescription? Sorry I don't follow. You have no "right" to medicine.



Children have a right to an education.
No they don't but that is another debate along with the debate as to whether the FEDERAL government should be spending on education.

That enhances quality of life.
Lots of things enhance the quality of life, where is it in the constitution that the federal government is required to pay for them by taking one persons property and giving it to someone else?

Should it only be provided if people can afford it?
We have a right to own a gun in this country, should it only be provide if people can afford it or should the federal government be required to give everyone a gun because it is a right?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
getinvolved said:
I was under the impression that unless you are above the age of 62 or disabled that you are ineligible for SS. So, I think this plan is aimed at helping people that, for example, may have less severe (non-disabling) conditions that require drugs to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
I was speaking in a broader term.



I have to disagree with you here as well, I used to work for small company that did not provide health insurance ....
Then change jobs

I think you grossly under estimate/ misunderstand the problems many people face in regard to the price health care, and that fact was made blatantly clear when you list the major things that make people self-sufficient in regard to heath care.
And I think you overestimate. But the fact remains that if you lead a responsible life the chances that you will find yourself in a position of needing government welfare are slim to none.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
Wait wait wait, you are comparing someone being charged by the government and forced to defend themselves in a courtroom and their right to an attorney with the government giving other people's money to someone wanting a prescription? Sorry I don't follow. You have no "right" to medicine.

No they don't but that is another debate along with the debate as to whether the FEDERAL government should be spending on education.

Lots of things enhance the quality of life, where is it in the constitution that the federal government is required to pay for them by taking one persons property and giving it to someone else?

We have a right to own a gun in this country, should it only be provide if people can afford it or should the federal government be required to give everyone a gun because it is a right?
The right to health makes a lot more sense than the right to an attorney.

Children do have the right to an education. Try denying it to them. You will be jailed.

And I never meant to imply that the government has to do everything that would enhance someone's life. I assumed you would agree that all children should be educated. Shows how wrong I was.

Nobody has to exercise a right. We all have a right to free speach. Doesn't mean we have to do anything with it.
 

getinvolved

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
The restictions on SS are to keep those who can do for themselves from using the system that is designed for those who can't.
getinvolved said:
I was under the impression that unless you are above the age of 62 or disabled that you are ineligible for SS. So, I think this plan is aimed at helping people that, for example, may have less severe (non-disabling) conditions that require drugs to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Stinger said:
I was speaking in a broader term.
In what respect? My point was that Social Security, although an option for your mother, is not an option for people under the age of 65 that are not on disability. So, it still stands that people stuck in the gap between making too much to receive Medicaid but not afforded health care by there employer -- are pretty much out of luck.


Stinger said:
Then change jobs
Again, my point -- there is something wrong with a system where I would have to, hypothetically, have to "get another job" in order to afford basic prescription drugs.

I'm suprised that your arguement is not aimed at a program like Medicaid, that supports people in an extremely low-income bracket, instead of a proposal that would help people attempting to support themselves -- and in turn placing themselves out of thecthreshold of Medicaid-eligibility :2no4: .
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
The right to health makes a lot more sense than the right to an attorney.
Well no it doesn't. The right to an attorney, as most rights are, is based on the fact that government can charge you with a crime and take away your rights, therefore you have a right to proper legal counsel. There is not right to health care. It's here, it's available, you are urged to use it, but nowhere in our founding documents is there a right to health care nor is the government, by making someone else earn it first, obliged to provide it to you.

Children do have the right to an education. Try denying it to them. You will be jailed.
Not on a federal, constitutional level. Each state does what it choses and some even home school. But there is no right in fact in my state we just voted down an amendment which would have declared it as a right. Now we do choose to provide a public education system and many would like to get rid of that.

And I never meant to imply that the government has to do everything that would enhance someone's life. I assumed you would agree that all children should be educated. Shows how wrong I was.
I most certainly agree that all children should be educated. But that does not make it a right. The use of the term "a right to........." has to be the most abused phrase in the last 30 years. EVERYTHING has become a right when in fact our rights are very limited and very specific. Just because you need something does not make it a right. Many of the things you are listing are not rights but have been declared entitlements, there is s difference.

Nobody has to exercise a right. We all have a right to free speach. Doesn't mean we have to do anything with it.
But what if someone wants to but can't afford it. For instance I bet you believe there is a right to have an abortion. And if someone can't afford it that the government should pay for it. Well then that should also apply to firearms. It is a right and if one can't afford one then by what you are implying the government should either give them one or give them the money to get one. This is the arguement you are making towards health care, you have a right therefore government must provide it.

If I am wrong then please explain where and how.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
getinvolved said:
In what respect? My point was that Social Security, although an option for your mother, is not an option for people under the age of 65 that are not on disability. So, it still stands that people stuck in the gap between making too much to receive Medicaid but not afforded health care by there employer -- are pretty much out of luck.
Nope then there is medicare and then there are programs with the pharmacuticles themselves.


Again, my point -- there is something wrong with a system where I would have to, hypothetically, have to "get another job" in order to afford basic prescription drugs.
Why is there something "wrong" with that? What is wrong with replacing what is obviously a meaneal employment with more providing employment or getting better educated or becoming a more valuable employee. Why is your answer "make someone else pay for what I need"?



Anyway BOTH prop's lost, we'll see what they do next out there. I'll let you have the last word...............if you are nice about it :lol:
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie? I was anxiously awaiting your response.
 
Top Bottom