• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should chronic self-abusers have access to government health care?

(See body of 1st post for question)


  • Total voters
    30
To put it simply, if you pay into the system, you should be able to benefit from that system, should the need arise.

Regardless of your lifestyle, everyone has the right to medical care.

Of course, if you have a full time job, you probably have medical insurance through your employer, so that's a moot point anyway.
 
Caine said:
There is one on the website where it is talking about President Bush "Dubya" where he said "I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision."
I looked it up, I guess the military okayed troops practicing the religion of Wicca, and Dubya had to go and show his Christian intolerance of other religions.

Heh....I was Wiccan at the time he said this (wife still is), Gotta say.....this pissed me off for about ten minutes....then I remembered who said it.
 
I've got an idea how about no nationalized socialist style health care system akin to those found in the failing states of Cananda and Western Europe where you have to wait up to a year to recieve inadequate health care.

Here's the deal for nationalized health care, the pay becomes standardized so people will not be able to get rich by becoming a Doctor so that the best and brightest amongst us decide to get another job which will afford them the best opportunity to better themselves, then, over time, the medical profession is taken over by the least common denominator Dr.'s will be the same people who are willing to work for teachers sallary, nothing against teachers my mom's one, but I would not want my mother performing open heart surgery on me.

A nationalized health care system would mean the dumbing down of Doctors in this country, just like any other socialist prospect nationalized healthcare may sound good on paper but in reality it's freaking retarted. (oh I mean mentally handycapable). ****ing Orwell!
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I've got an idea how about no nationalized socialist style health care akin to the failing states of Cananda and Western Europe where you have to wait up to a year to recieve inadequate health care.

Here's the deal for nationalized health care, the pay becomes standardized so people will not be able to make get rich by becoming a Doctor so that the best and brightest amongst us decide to get another job which will afford them the best opportunity to better themselves, then, over time, the medical profession is taken over by the least common denominator Dr.'s will be the same people who are willing to work for teachers sallary, nothing against teachers, my mom's one, but I would not want my mother performing open heart surgery on me.

A nationalized health care system would mean the dumbing down of Doctors in this country, just like any other socialist prospect nationalized healthcare may sound good on paper but in reality it's freaking retarted. (oh I mean mentally handycapable). ****ing Orwell!

Actually, you could pay doctors quite well if you didn't have middlemen (insurance companies) inflating costs. Also drug companies wouldn't need to waste millions of dollars advertising drugs that have 7 side effects worse than the original ailment. You ever try to sue the govt.? Frivolous lawsuits would be erased also.
 
I don,t know what it is like over in the u.s but over here smokers pay 90%of the nhs finances from taxation of ciggarettes so yes smokers should be treated just like any other ie car drivers, drinkers.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Actually, you could pay doctors quite well if you didn't have middlemen (insurance companies) inflating costs. Also drug companies wouldn't need to waste millions of dollars advertising drugs that have 7 side effects worse than the original ailment. You ever try to sue the govt.? Frivolous lawsuits would be erased also.

How could you pay the doctors quite well??? By raising taxes so that the populace is eventually taking home half of what they earn, upward mobility becomes stagnant because the poor are getting screwed over and out. And if you say that we just should tax the rich well then guess what? Growth stagnation of the economy sets in, tax intake drops because companies aren't making as much money, so in an effort to stay competive companies try to cut costs in the labor section so unemployment rises, as a result the government in an effort to pay for the social programs needed for the newly unemployed decides to print more money, inflation sets in, eventually hyper-inflation, then the total deflation of the economy. Every time the socialist experiments are tryed it only ends in failure and makes the situation worse then when it started.

No medical liability suits? Ya sure thing the trial lawyer's lobby is really going to let that one happen.
 
Last edited:
independent_thinker2002 said:
Actually, you could pay doctors quite well if you didn't have middlemen (insurance companies) inflating costs. Also drug companies wouldn't need to waste millions of dollars advertising drugs that have 7 side effects worse than the original ailment. You ever try to sue the govt.? Frivolous lawsuits would be erased also.

Ummmm.... I have him on ignore, but.
Why did you even respond to that?
Its completely off topic, We aren't talking about creating a national healthcare system, we are talking about denying access to Medicaid/Medicare to those who are heavy smokers/drinkers/ and overeaters.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
How could you pay the doctors quite well???

I am glad you asked. By legalizing and taxing marijuana. Eliminating most of the IRS and instilling a national sales tax.
 
Caine said:
Ummmm.... I have him on ignore, but.
Why did you even respond to that?
Its completely off topic, We aren't talking about creating a national healthcare system, we are talking about denying access to Medicaid/Medicare to those who are heavy smokers/drinkers/ and overeaters.

Sorry, I got off-course.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I am glad you asked. By legalizing and taxing marijuana. Eliminating most of the IRS and instilling a national sales tax.

Got any figures to show that your hypothetical taxation of recreational marijuana will be sufficient to pay for a nationalized healthcare system? Eliminating income tax and using a national sales tax instead wouldn't add to tax revenue it would only transfer the means of obtaining it.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Got any figures to show that your hypothetical taxation of recreational marijuana will be sufficient to pay for a nationalized healthcare system. Eliminating income tax and using a national sales tax wouldn't add funds it would only transfer the means of obtaining them.

Why not it works with ciggarettes over here?
 
Stace said:
Regardless of your lifestyle, everyone has the right to medical care.
The question isnt the right to health care, the question is the right to health care that someone elseis forced to pay for.

That you paid for someone elses health care does not mean you have the right to expect someone else to pay for yours.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Got any figures to show that your hypothetical taxation of recreational marijuana will be sufficient to pay for a nationalized healthcare system? Eliminating income tax and using a national sales tax instead wouldn't add to tax revenue it would only transfer the means of obtaining it.

Not right now I don't have figures. But I do know that revenues from a national sales tax would bring in more money due to that fact that illegally made cash that is not taxed now would get taxed when it was spent.
 
M14 Shooter said:
The question isnt the right to health care, the question is the right to health care that someone elseis forced to pay for.

That you paid for someone elses health care does not mean you have the right to expect someone else to pay for yours.

Sure you do....they expected you to pay for their health care, didn't they?
 
FISHX said:
Why not it works with ciggarettes over here?

Again your country is living proof of why a socialized healthcare system doesn't work, your Doctors are under payed and under-qualified and you have to wait to long to recieve inadequat treatment. Not to mention that your population is like what 1/10 of the U.S.? If that.
 
M14 Shooter said:
That you paid for someone elses health care does not mean you have the right to expect someone else to pay for yours.

Wouldn't that be considered government robbery? (No, this is not an offer to open up what you, or anyone else, thinks is Income tax robbery)

Do you support the government taking someone's money to support a program that they will have access to as well, and then reniging on that offer?
 
M14 Shooter said:
The question isnt the right to health care, the question is the right to health care that someone elseis forced to pay for.

That you paid for someone elses health care does not mean you have the right to expect someone else to pay for yours.

Then don't get health insurance. Health insurance is socialistic in nature. The only thing capitalistic about it is the insurance companies make a profit off of people that pay into their program.
 
Caine said:
Umm... how do we determine that it was caused by, as you put it, DELIBERATE intent?
Who 'deliberately' runs themselves in to the ground?

People who smoke.
People who overeat, and eat poorly.
People who use IV drugs.

What you're arguing is that people who make poor choices should not be held accountable for them, while the rest of us should.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Then don't get health insurance. Health insurance is socialistic in nature. The only thing capitalistic about it is the insurance companies make a profit off of people that pay into their program.

We arent talking about health insurance. Health insurance is voluntary, and if I chose to have health insurance, then I chose to pay for other peoples' illnesses.

We're talking about taxpayer-funded health care, where I --don't-- have a choice in paying for others.

Choice is a good thing, right?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Not right now I don't have figures. But I do know that revenues from a national sales tax would bring in more money due to that fact that illegally made cash that is not taxed now would get taxed when it was spent.

How can you prove that their would be adequate funds for a nationalized health care system from the increased revenue obtained through the taxation of a hypothetical unknown amount of undeclared currency?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Again your country is living proof of why a socialized healthcare system doesn't work, your Doctors are under payed and under-qualified and you have to wait to long to recieve inadequat treatment. Not to mention that your population is like what 1/10 of the U.S.? If that.


Granted we do not have the best medical system in the world but everybody here is entitled to the same quality of help from it.

Also the bigger the country the bigger the smoking population is likely to be hence more money for healthcare it will balance out on scale.

Out of curiosoty do you think that the victim of a car accident deserves medical help considering the victim got into the car knowing it could cause health prob;ems ie crash?
 
Trajan, if that isn't enough revenue a national lottery could bring in enough more money. Instead of war bonds how about Health care bonds?
 
M14 Shooter said:
We arent talking about health insurance. Health insurance is voluntary, and if I chose to have health insurance, then I chose to pay for other peoples' illnesses.

We're talking about taxpayer-funded health care, where I --don't-- have a choice in paying for others.

Choice is a good thing, right?

Sure choice is a good thing. If you want to complain about how the govt. spends our tax dollars without our choice this thread will never end. The best you can do is vote and let your representatives know how you feel. I would rather have everyone have health care than bail out corporations that competed themselves out of business.
 
FISHX said:
Granted we do not have the best medical system in the world but everybody here is entitled to the same quality of help from it.

Ya the same sub-par quality.
Also the bigger the country the bigger the smoking population is likely to be hence more money for healthcare it will balance out on scale.

The bigger the country the higher the smoking population? All right granted but the higher the population the more people you would have to supply health care to.
Out of curiosoty do you think that the victim of a car accident deserves medical help considering the victim got into the car knowing it could cause health prob;ems ie crash?

Yes they deserve healthcare and they get it in a life threatening case whether they have insurance or not nationalizing the healthcare system will lead to sub-par care and the dumbing down of the medical profession as is clearly evident in the socialist countries in Western Europe, Canada, and Latin America.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Trajan, if that isn't enough revenue a national lottery could bring in enough more money. Instead of war bonds how about Health care bonds?

Ya because the lotto tax revenue has worked so well in fixing the Florida school system. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom