• 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!

Healthcare is a privilege or a right?

Not a right in my opinion, there are plenty of other things in life that I would prefer to be a right before health care.
 
There is a difference from the insurance you pay into on your own free will. Then if the government mandates you have a plan or be fined or have the IRS release on you. The federal government was no right to force me to own anything. What's next a new tax to buy homes for the homeless? If health care is a right then having a roof above your head is a right too right?

If someone is down on there luck and needs help should we help them? Yes, I help people out (within my means) and donate to charities when I can, but the because I have the right to choose so. Just because you have a good heart does not mean you can pass a law that forces people to give up there income for others. Some you guys that lean to left say this isn't socialism well it's a start down that road. What is the old saying " give them a inch and they walk a mile."
 
cpgrad08 said:
There is a difference from the insurance you pay into on your own free will. Then if the government mandates you have a plan or be fined or have the IRS release on you. The federal government was no right to force me to own anything. What's next a new tax to buy homes for the homeless? If health care is a right then having a roof above your head is a right too right?

If someone is down on there luck and needs help should we help them? Yes, I help people out (within my means) and donate to charities when I can, but the because I have the right to choose so. Just because you have a good heart does not mean you can pass a law that forces people to give up there income for others. Some you guys that lean to left say this isn't socialism well it's a start down that road. What is the old saying " give them a inch and they walk a mile."
Click to expand...

Here is the key question for people who do not like the mandate. A problem many have with the current system is that it is very difficult to get insurance if you have a preexisting condition. How can you make insurance companies insure people with preexisting conditions without everyone having insurance.

Without a mandate there would be a sign up sheet by hospitals for people before they get admitted.
 
washunut said:
Here is the key question for people who do not like the mandate. A problem many have with the current system is that it is very difficult to get insurance if you have a preexisting condition. How can you make insurance companies insure people with preexisting conditions without everyone having insurance.

Without a mandate there would be a sign up sheet by hospitals for people before they get admitted.
Click to expand...

Simple, you only force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions if the person has had insurance. That way people can change jobs, insurance or whatever without losing coverage. But, the people that try to scam the insurance companies can't get insurance for a single event.

You are, however, looking at this from the wrong angle. You are looking at the outcome as justification and ignoring the loss of freedom that is associated with the mandate.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Simple, you only force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions if the person has had insurance. That way people can change jobs, insurance or whatever without losing coverage. But, the people that try to scam the insurance companies can't get insurance for a single event.

You are, however, looking at this from the wrong angle. You are looking at the outcome as justification and ignoring the loss of freedom that is associated with the mandate.
Click to expand...

You consider it the wrong angle. That is fine. However I look at it as the lesser of two evils.
 
washunut said:
Here is the key question for people who do not like the mandate. A problem many have with the current system is that it is very difficult to get insurance if you have a preexisting condition. How can you make insurance companies insure people with preexisting conditions without everyone having insurance.

Without a mandate there would be a sign up sheet by hospitals for people before they get admitted.
Click to expand...


The issue at heart is not helping those who can not help themselves. The issue is freedom. I have the freedom to have to my own insurance, and I have the freedom to choose the help others out. The minute the government passes this mandate what would stop them for passing more mandates all for the greater good? What you are suggesting is that I give up my personal freedoms and my right of choice for "the greater good". The ends do not justify the means my friend.
 
cpgrad08 said:
The issue at heart is not helping those who can not help themselves. The issue is freedom. I have the freedom to have to my own insurance, and I have the freedom to choose the help others out. The minute the government passes this mandate what would stop them for passing more mandates all for the greater good? What you are suggesting is that I give up my personal freedoms and my right of choice for "the greater good". The ends do not justify the means my friend.
Click to expand...

So the other way to go is to have basic medical insurance set up like retirement insurance, social security. Let there be a payroll tax and have everyone in a basic medicare type situation.

For those who want to go to their own doctors, better coverage etc they could buy supplemental insurance privately. Medical costs are 17% of GDP and rising. There has to be some type of reining in of mosts or else this problem will swamp everything else.

We need real health insurance reform, not what we got and not do nothing.
 
washunut said:
So the other way to go is to have basic medical insurance set up like retirement insurance, social security. Let there be a payroll tax and have everyone in a basic medicare type situation.

For those who want to go to their own doctors, better coverage etc they could buy supplemental insurance privately. Medical costs are 17% of GDP and rising. There has to be some type of reining in of mosts or else this problem will swamp everything else.

We need real health insurance reform, not what we got and not do nothing.
Click to expand...

Am not saying the system doesn't needs reform and could be improve on. What am saying we can do this without violating people's rights and making health care something that the government rations out like food stamps.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Am not saying the system doesn't needs reform and could be improve on. What am saying we can do this without violating people's rights and making health care something that the government rations out like food stamps.
Click to expand...

Instead, keep it something a good number can't access adequately, and that insurance companies ration out like food stamps. :coffeepap
 
washunut said:
You consider it the wrong angle. That is fine. However I look at it as the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

Me too. The lesser of two evils is not giving up your right to life over a bill.
 
cpgrad08 said:
The issue at heart is not helping those who can not help themselves. The issue is freedom. I have the freedom to have to my own insurance, and I have the freedom to choose the help others out. The minute the government passes this mandate what would stop them for passing more mandates all for the greater good? What you are suggesting is that I give up my personal freedoms and my right of choice for "the greater good". The ends do not justify the means my friend.
Click to expand...

I hope I wasn't too snarky above. I think you're responidng in a reasonable manner. But freedom requaires that there be consequences. This means, in health care, that if people choose not to cover their bases, we must be willing, no matter how badly hurt or injuried they are, to refuse treatment. Without being willing to do this, those who freely choose to be irresponsible will continue to irresponsible.

This is more a about public health than anything else. We have to treat people who are seriously ill or injuried. We presently wait to do so when it is emergent, by law, or take them whenever, as is common, passing all the costs on to all of us who are responsible. this is much like the auto driver who drives without ebing insured, betting he won't have an accident. Largely no problem up and until he wrecks his car.

Freedom, is also the freedom to work as a people to solve problems. Our government is not completely separated from us. We can change our leaders each election cycle.
 
Boo Radley said:
I hope I wasn't too snarky above. I think you're responidng in a reasonable manner. But freedom requaires that there be consequences. This means, in health care, that if people choose not to cover their bases, we must be willing, no matter how badly hurt or injuried they are, to refuse treatment. Without being willing to do this, those who freely choose to be irresponsible will continue to irresponsible.

This is more a about public health than anything else. We have to treat people who are seriously ill or injuried. We presently wait to do so when it is emergent, by law, or take them whenever, as is common, passing all the costs on to all of us who are responsible. this is much like the auto driver who drives without ebing insured, betting he won't have an accident. Largely no problem up and until he wrecks his car.

Freedom, is also the freedom to work as a people to solve problems. Our government is not completely separated from us. We can change our leaders each election cycle.
Click to expand...

Your right by changing leaders why do you think the Republicans took back the house in huge numbers after the DNC ran congress pass the health care law when the majority of Americans did not want this. Should people be denied medical if they need it no, But should I be force to pay for them no. Freedom is a double edge sword. In any true free society you are going to have those that live a better quality life then others. As horrible this may sound that is the way of life and nature.

I view this as a slippy slope down a pass were soon everybody was the same house, same car, same pay and the same health care as everyone else. That way no one is different and no one has a better life quality then the next guy.

Snarky? Don't worry about it being in the Corps makes one have thick skin. LOL
 
Last edited:
cpgrad08 said:
Your right by changing leaders why do you think the Republicans took back the house in huge numbers after the DNC ran congress pass the health care law when the majority of Americans did not want this. Should people be denied medical if they need it no, But should I be force to pay for them no.
Click to expand...


Here is the catch though. You do wind up paying one way or the other.

In Texas we are having a bit of a budget crisis and it has been proposed to cut medicaid by 10%. Now then hospitals and doctors have said they have to make up the revenue and they are by charging insurance more for services. This means most likely premiums will go up. In the mean the taxes that fund medicaid will not be cut.
 
Boo Radley said:
N o one has asked anyone to do that. Hyperbole much?
Click to expand...

If you give up control of the money that you use to purchase services that extend your life...you gave up your right to life.
 
ksu_aviator said:
If you give up control of the money that you use to purchase services that extend your life...you gave up your right to life.
Click to expand...

No one has asked you give up control. Even with a single payer system, you would still be allowed to buy more. Nothing will stop you.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Your right by changing leaders why do you think the Republicans took back the house in huge numbers after the DNC ran congress pass the health care law when the majority of Americans did not want this. Should people be denied medical if they need it no, But should I be force to pay for them no. Freedom is a double edge sword. In any true free society you are going to have those that live a better quality life then others. As horrible this may sound that is the way of life and nature.

I view this as a slippy slope down a pass were soon everybody was the same house, same car, same pay and the same health care as everyone else. That way no one is different and no one has a better life quality then the next guy.

Snarky? Don't worry about it being in the Corps makes one have thick skin. LOL
Click to expand...

The state of the economy was the major reason for that change. health care wasn't the main reason. And exit polling showed that on health care about 1/3 thought the health care Bill went too far. About 1/3 thought it was just right, and about 1/3 thought it didn't go far enough. Not sure what message that is suppose to sent.

And if you don't deny, you will pay for it. You do now, before reform. there is no way around that. So, you're actual objection is not to paying for it. You seem quite willing to that. You just don't want to pay less, or spend that moeny more efficiently or effectively. I don't mean that to be snotty. But, we all pay now, in a very inefficent manner. We don't even know if we pay more than we should or not.

And slippery sloppes are often fallacies. Rarely do they actually happen. Most countries have some form of a universal health care system, and they are not all owning the same house, car or getting the same pay.
 
It's a right. Everyone is entiltled to live healthy with having to worry about whether or not they can afford basic care.
 
Boo Radley said:
The state of the economy was the major reason for that change. health care wasn't the main reason. And exit polling showed that on health care about 1/3 thought the health care Bill went too far. About 1/3 thought it was just right, and about 1/3 thought it didn't go far enough. Not sure what message that is suppose to sent.

And if you don't deny, you will pay for it. You do now, before reform. there is no way around that. So, you're actual objection is not to paying for it. You seem quite willing to that. You just don't want to pay less, or spend that moeny more efficiently or effectively. I don't mean that to be snotty. But, we all pay now, in a very inefficent manner. We don't even know if we pay more than we should or not.

And slippery sloppes are often fallacies. Rarely do they actually happen. Most countries have some form of a universal health care system, and they are not all owning the same house, car or getting the same pay.
Click to expand...

In U.S., 46% Favor, 40% Oppose Repealing Healthcare Law

The Economy was a big issue yes, but the GOP and the Tea Party also ran on the platform of repealing the Health Care law. Which as we saw in during the Midterms that the American Public responded to.
 
Boo Radley said:
The state of the economy was the major reason for that change. health care wasn't the main reason. And exit polling showed that on health care about 1/3 thought the health care Bill went too far. About 1/3 thought it was just right, and about 1/3 thought it didn't go far enough. Not sure what message that is suppose to sent.

And if you don't deny, you will pay for it. You do now, before reform. there is no way around that. So, you're actual objection is not to paying for it. You seem quite willing to that. You just don't want to pay less, or spend that moeny more efficiently or effectively. I don't mean that to be snotty. But, we all pay now, in a very inefficent manner. We don't even know if we pay more than we should or not.

And slippery sloppes are often fallacies. Rarely do they actually happen. Most countries have some form of a universal health care system, and they are not all owning the same house, car or getting the same pay.
Click to expand...

In U.S., 46% Favor, 40% Oppose Repealing Healthcare Law

The Economy was a big issue yes, but the GOP and the Tea Party also ran on the platform of repealing the Health Care law. Which as we saw in during the Midterms that the American Public responded to.
 
Juiposa said:
It's a right. Everyone is entiltled to live healthy with having to worry about whether or not they can afford basic care.
Click to expand...

Every one was the right to pursue a Healthy life but no one is given it by the Government.
 
I think coverage for basic care and life-threatening conditions should be a right. Anything beyond that, not so sure.
 
Boo Radley said:
Follow your numbers further. Of the 46% favoring replealling, how many thought it didn't go far enough? It matters btw. ;)
Click to expand...

I am one of those who do not think it went far enough. That is why I am in fvor of repeal. Letting this bill stand, means that the adminustration and congress can say great we fixed health care, lets move on. We need real, fundemental change in many aspects of health care that were not addressed with this legislation.
 
Boo Radley said:
No one has asked you give up control. Even with a single payer system, you would still be allowed to buy more. Nothing will stop you.
Click to expand...

What? That doesn't even make any sense. Single-payer is, by its very definition, one payer. Are you telling me I have control over every single-payer system? Sweet. I need a new boat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom