Nearly all health insurance mandates are coupled with subsidies and/or vouchers for lower income people. And rather than "making" health insurance companies lower their prices, I support a revenue-neutral public option to compete with them on a level playing field. Then they would naturally reduce their prices without being forced to do so.
You really do not think we should go after big pharma? They are a bunch of crooks and doctors get kick backs for pushing their drugs.
debit cards seem like it may be a good idea, reloaded monthly or whateverNone of those things are covered by food stamps. If you're talking about bartering them on the secondary market, you are correct that it happens, but I don't want to make it even easier to do this by giving people cash instead of food.
Nearly all health insurance mandates are coupled with subsidies and/or vouchers for lower income people. And rather than "making" health insurance companies lower their prices, I support a revenue-neutral public option to compete with them on a level playing field. Then they would naturally reduce their prices without being forced to do so.
debit cards seem like it may be a good idea, reloaded monthly or whatever
DeeJayH said:by creating an entity to 'compete with the' on a non-profit basis is forcing them to do so
Only if you do not support people having the right to choose.Should Healthcare insurance be mandatory for everyone?
Sure there is:Yes, having health insurance should be mandatory. There is no practical/ethical way to deny someone emergency health care just because they don't have insurance
This is not at all necessarily so.Except the taxpayers WILL have an obligation to pay for your medical care if you don't have insurance.
He, himself.If it turns out he doesn't have insurance, who should be responsible for his medical costs?
Why?Seriously, medical bills should be non bankrupt able bills.
If they administer treatment before doing so, then they run the risk of not getting paid. Their choice.That is not a practical solution. If someone is in a car accident and is hemorrhaging blood when they're brought into the emergency room, how is the hospital going to know if they can pay or not?
:applaudIf healthcare is not mandatory, then those who refuse to get it, and cannot pay for services, should be denied, or at the least, the government, under no circumstances should subsidize in any way. No exceptions.
:applaudIf we go with a personal responsibility model, if someone chooses not to protect their health in this way, it is not the government's responsibility to pay. If a hospital, individual, or charity wants to cover it, fine, that is their choice. If they do not, no services.
If they administer treatment before doing so, then they run the risk of not getting paid. Their choice.So, the hospital determines that the man has no money, no insurance, so they just let him die..
What it all boils down to is that there's no rational argument for me being responsible for your medical bills,one unrealistic way way of looking it it and that you have a right to have me provide you the means to exercise your right (if any) to health care.
Not for a second disregarding the fact that you didnt actually address my argument...This is an example of the wealthy man's(or his supporters) attitude that I speak of...
You mean like all those all-show-and-no-go liberals that promised to leave if GWB were (re)elected?If we do, in fact have a representative democracy, and Obama's health care reform is voted down, then, I'll have to move to a more civilized nation and give our country more time to grow up.
Sure there is:
-Those that provide the goods and services have a right to be compensated for same;
-You do not have a right to expect others to pay for goods and services you receive
-You are responsible for yourself, and you are responsible for the choices you make, regardless of the circumstances of those choices.
Not sure why you think this is so difficult...OK, so since you think this is a practical alternative, please explain how it would work when someone is brought into the emergency room, bleeding and unconscious.
Obviously, that's not true.The point is...anyone who claims that hospitals should be allowed to deny emergency care to people without insurance hasn't even considered the practical ramifications of that.
Not sure why you think this is so difficult...
The health care providers make a determination of the victim's ability to pay using whatever means they have available. If they determine the victim has insurance, then all is well; if they determine he does not, or they cannot make a determination, then they decide to treat him at their risk, or not treat him.
Goobieman said:If the victim does not have insurance, and the providers treat him then he, himself is financially responsible for the bills he incurrs.
Goobieman said:Your right to health care does not trump anyone's right to be compensated for the goods and services they provide,
Goobieman said:Obviously, that's not true.
Not sure why you think this is so difficult...
The health care providers make a determination of the victim's ability to pay using whatever means they have available. If they determine the victim has insurance, then all is well; if they determine he does not, or they cannot make a determination, then they decide to treat him at their risk, or not treat him.
Thus, in a society like ours, you know, where most people have a conscience, its perfectly reasonable to require individuals that choose to live here to at least carry some sort of a minimal catastrophic policy....
Fairly good post. Except for the part that I have quoted. Not everyone can "choose" where they live. Not everyone has the ability or money to move to a different country. Which is basically what you are saying. So you condemn those people to pay for something which they can't afford, and which charges them for simply living. Where's your "conscience" now?
If healthcare is not mandatory, then those who refuse to get it, and cannot pay for services, should be denied
No. Why should they be able to?So what is your answer to my other question: If they decide to do nothing, and it turns out he did have health insurance, can his family sue the hospital?
The bill then goes to the estate. If they estate cannot pay, then the hospital is stuck with it. As noted before, if the hospital cannot determine the patients ability to pay and they treat him anywway, they assume the risk of non-payment.What if he dies? You want to stick the hospital with the bill?
Strawman. See above. Be sure to read the part where I state "if the hospital cannot determine the patients ability to pay and they treat him anywway, they assume the risk of non-payment".An unusual position, coming from someone who wants to saddle individual hospitals with individual debts that they didn't ask for, instead of spreading the cost out amongst the public. :roll:
Obviously not.It is true, as you are STILL refusing to consider the practical consequences even after I pointed them out to you.
It doesn't matter how often you repeat your spiel here, your position has been addressed, and you have done nothing to counter the arguments that addrsss it. As such, your position remains untenable.Since we live in a society where the vast majority of us have a conscience...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?