Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A National Health Insurance Would be Better

fatngassy
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 6:27:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
As the Supreme Court deliberates over the "Affordable Care Act," one has to wonder - what are the other options? We have apparently decided as a nation that we would like a "system" where Americans can go see a doctor if they are sick or injured, regardless of immediate financial condition, but it's left to a hard-pressed middle America to fund it all.
The working class subsidizes all our "hard cases" - the elderly, the disabled, veterans, and the poor. The insurance industry gets the low risk pool - the working class, itself.
American workers are dependent upon their employers for health care, spouses are dependent upon their partners for health care. In fact, no American should be dependent upon anyone else for their health care - we should all be covered in our own right.
We could scrap the monstrous trust-based ponzi scheme, Medicare; scrap the Veteran's health Agency; scrap medicaid, and scrap the 100's of government-funded health clinics in favor of universal health insurance.
By fully-subsidizing with a 4% Special consumption tax (yes, a national sales tax so that EVERYBODY shares the load); a 3% payroll tax; and a 4% Corporate/business EBITA tax; we could indemnify each and every American for basic coverage - $5000 per capita. That's all we need if properly managed.
We could balance the budget overnight, give American workers the type of flexibilty we need, simplify our absurdly convoluted hybrid current "system," control costs, and give states and American industry a shot in the arm by taking the 8000 gorilla off their backs and put it squarely onto the backs of an underworked federal bureaucracy. Yes, the simplest, most efficient way to handle health insurance would be to hand it over to our Social Security admnistration, as counter-intuitive as that sounds.
When it comes to insurance - spreading the risk is the best strategy. A national health insurance would be the largest coop we could muster.
We need to give American workers some relief, and balance the budget. I propose a Republican-designed, fiscally-responsible national health insurance. It's doable.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 9:42:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Regardless of whether we could, the proof needs to be why we SHOULD. Why is health care the job of the state?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
ldcon
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 5:26:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Why health is the job of the state'

I think this is the perfect question. And it basically comes down to an escalation of a more basic principle. We could view this as parallel to NYC's soda size ban--because the city takes some role in health, it's then justified to take a larger role. And it takes the initial role because people find it difficult to argue the state shouldn't do something smaller, like vaccinating to achieve cross-immunities.
fatngassy
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 12:55:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 9:42:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Regardless of whether we could, the proof needs to be why we SHOULD. Why is health care the job of the state?

It's the job of Congress and the federal government IS to provide for the general welfare of the nation. Something that benefits everyone and helps ensure a scarce and universally-needed resource is allocated fairly and effectively is of vital interest to the future of the nation, and it's citizens. Should the government have "control" over our health care "system?" Hell yes! They should. Who would you suggest be in charge of it? The insurance industry? The AMA? The 50 different dens of political corruption known collectively as the "states"? The counties? "Someone" needs to grab this corrupt and unsustainable "system" of ours by the balls and the federal government is the obvious, logical choice. We need to consolidate, simplify and most importantly, SHARE our health care resources. That's just the way it should be. No other option makes economic sense.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 1:07:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Private charities have done more for my "general welfare" than the government ever has. Thank goodness they do not have a monopoly on that (yet).
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 1:09:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 12:55:58 PM, fatngassy wrote:
At 6/14/2012 9:42:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Regardless of whether we could, the proof needs to be why we SHOULD. Why is health care the job of the state?

It's the job of Congress and the federal government IS to provide for the general welfare of the nation. Something that benefits everyone and helps ensure a scarce and universally-needed resource is allocated fairly and effectively is of vital interest to the future of the nation, and it's citizens. Should the government have "control" over our health care "system?" Hell yes! They should. Who would you suggest be in charge of it? The insurance industry? The AMA? The 50 different dens of political corruption known collectively as the "states"? The counties? "Someone" needs to grab this corrupt and unsustainable "system" of ours by the balls and the federal government is the obvious, logical choice. We need to consolidate, simplify and most importantly, SHARE our health care resources. That's just the way it should be. No other option makes economic sense.

Should food be allocated by the government? Transportation?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ldcon
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 7:30:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Something that benefits everyone and helps ensure a scarce and universally-needed resource is allocated fairly and effectively is of vital interest to the future of the nation, and it's citizens. Should the government have "control" over our health care "system?" Hell yes! They should."

So, a few questions.

Since 1/3 of the annual increase in health costs can be attributed to obesity (Re. McKinsey) what do you feel Government would be justified in doing to deal with these costs?

What's a 'fair' way to allocate healthcare?

Will you adjust for lifestyle choices/behavior?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 7:36:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 7:30:51 PM, ldcon wrote:
"Something that benefits everyone and helps ensure a scarce and universally-needed resource is allocated fairly and effectively is of vital interest to the future of the nation, and it's citizens. Should the government have "control" over our health care "system?" Hell yes! They should."

So, a few questions.

Since 1/3 of the annual increase in health costs can be attributed to obesity (Re. McKinsey) what do you feel Government would be justified in doing to deal with these costs?

Nothing.

What's a 'fair' way to allocate healthcare?

Free market.

Will you adjust for lifestyle choices/behavior?

Why?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 9:26:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, that would be great. Some bureaucratic jaka$$ in Washington who thinks they know what's best for me and telling me what I can and can't have with regard to my health care choices. Yep that would be just great. And it would be so much more cost efficient to. Just look at govts record at efficiency.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 9:30:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"It's the job of Congress and the federal government IS to provide for the general welfare of the nation. "

WRONG!! It is the govts job to "PROMOTE" not "provide." PROMOTE means govt getting the fck out of the way so charity churches and the private sector can do it.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 10:21:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The four functions of government are; military duties, civic amenities, education, and justice and administration.

Military duties comprise of protection from criminal and foreign use of force against citizens.

Civic amenities comprise of sanitation, proper hygiene, and creating a secure environment for people to live in.

Education comprises of ensuring that the youth of the nation have access to non-partisan education.

Justice and administration is comprised of ensuring that the laws of the land are upheld, and government services are provided in an efficient manner.

These are the four roles of every government. Notice how providing free health care isn't mentioned anywhere in these four categories, health care is not right, it is a privilege.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:57:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
As much as I would love to not force a plan down anyone's throat, people not having health care insurance only leads to societal harm and economic hardship. The healthcare reform simply ends some malpractices of health insurance companies such as terminating insurance for preexisting conditions and whatnot as well as offers small subsidies to the poor who can't afford health insurance due to competing interests driving up prices.

Now, I don't support single-payer healthcare. That totally cuts the free-market out of the equation and I can't have that.
turn down for h'what
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:55:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:57:03 AM, Aaronroy wrote:
As much as I would love to not force a plan down anyone's throat, people not having health care insurance only leads to societal harm and economic hardship. The healthcare reform simply ends some malpractices of health insurance companies such as terminating insurance for preexisting conditions and whatnot as well as offers small subsidies to the poor who can't afford health insurance due to competing interests driving up prices.

Now, I don't support single-payer healthcare. That totally cuts the free-market out of the equation and I can't have that.

I am older and have seen the past. We as a nation used to have an awesome health care system. It was destroyed by providing health care to the millions upon millions of people who entered this country illegally over the past two decades. We may as well be providing and paying for the health care for the entire population of Sweden two fold every year. Yes that is how many people have inundated our health care system and never pay a dime into it. Of course it doesn't work anymore. Govt has no compassion for it's own population, it cares more about the welfare of illegal aliens who pay nothing and call it compassion. Non US citizens who go to a hospital should be treated to the point of being able to be transported and promptly deported if they have no documentation to be in this country legally if they do and can't show it immediately let them sort it out in their country and they can come back. That is compassion both for the illegal alien and the "Legal" US citizen.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
fatngassy
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 3:23:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Should food be "allocated" by the government? No, but if there are shortages of food, rationing would be the correct way to deal with it. or, Should we just let the wealthy hoard all the food while the working class starves?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2012 4:55:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/20/2012 3:23:52 PM, fatngassy wrote:
Should food be "allocated" by the government? No, but if there are shortages of food, rationing would be the correct way to deal with it. or,

All resources are finite.

Should we just let the wealthy hoard all the food while the working class starves?

Lol. This is exactly what happens when the government "allocates" food for people.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
fatngassy
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 5:49:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 1:09:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/16/2012 12:55:58 PM, fatngassy wrote:
At 6/14/2012 9:42:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Regardless of whether we could, the proof needs to be why we SHOULD. Why is health care the job of the state?

It's the job of Congress and the federal government IS to provide for the general welfare of the nation. Something that benefits everyone and helps ensure a scarce and universally-needed resource is allocated fairly and effectively is of vital interest to the future of the nation, and it's citizens. Should the government have "control" over our health care "system?" Hell yes! They should. Who would you suggest be in charge of it? The insurance industry? The AMA? The 50 different dens of political corruption known collectively as the "states"? The counties? "Someone" needs to grab this corrupt and unsustainable "system" of ours by the balls and the federal government is the obvious, logical choice. We need to consolidate, simplify and most importantly, SHARE our health care resources. That's just the way it should be. No other option makes economic sense.

Should food be allocated by the government? Transportation?

Yes. If food was in short supply, the government could and should ration it. Fuel would need to be treated likewise.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 5:53:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 5:49:38 PM, fatngassy wrote:
At 6/16/2012 1:09:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/16/2012 12:55:58 PM, fatngassy wrote:
At 6/14/2012 9:42:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Regardless of whether we could, the proof needs to be why we SHOULD. Why is health care the job of the state?

It's the job of Congress and the federal government IS to provide for the general welfare of the nation. Something that benefits everyone and helps ensure a scarce and universally-needed resource is allocated fairly and effectively is of vital interest to the future of the nation, and it's citizens. Should the government have "control" over our health care "system?" Hell yes! They should. Who would you suggest be in charge of it? The insurance industry? The AMA? The 50 different dens of political corruption known collectively as the "states"? The counties? "Someone" needs to grab this corrupt and unsustainable "system" of ours by the balls and the federal government is the obvious, logical choice. We need to consolidate, simplify and most importantly, SHARE our health care resources. That's just the way it should be. No other option makes economic sense.

Should food be allocated by the government? Transportation?



Yes. If food was in short supply, the government could and should ration it. Fuel would need to be treated likewise.

Cool story brah. How is medical care in any more of a short supply than food? If you chose to argue this perspective, then you must know that all of these shortages are a result of bureaucratic intervention in the market place.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
fatngassy
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 6:00:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:55:35 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:57:03 AM, Aaronroy wrote:
As much as I would love to not force a plan down anyone's throat, people not having health care insurance only leads to societal harm and economic hardship. The healthcare reform simply ends some malpractices of health insurance companies such as terminating insurance for preexisting conditions and whatnot as well as offers small subsidies to the poor who can't afford health insurance due to competing interests driving up prices.

Now, I don't support single-payer healthcare. That totally cuts the free-market out of the equation and I can't have that.

I am older and have seen the past. We as a nation used to have an awesome health care system. It was destroyed by providing health care to the millions upon millions of people who entered this country illegally over the past two decades. We may as well be providing and paying for the health care for the entire population of Sweden two fold every year. Yes that is how many people have inundated our health care system and never pay a dime into it. Of course it doesn't work anymore. Govt has no compassion for it's own population, it cares more about the welfare of illegal aliens who pay nothing and call it compassion. Non US citizens who go to a hospital should be treated to the point of being able to be transported and promptly deported if they have no documentation to be in this country legally if they do and can't show it immediately let them sort it out in their country and they can come back. That is compassion both for the illegal alien and the "Legal" US citizen.

It still is awesome, for some people. Anyone in this country, legally or illegally, needs to be able to go see a doctor when they are injured or otherwise in need of care. And I'm afraid we can't ask those people to pay up front. They may not have the money. We need a national health insurance so that we can get it under control. Funding through sales taxes ensures everyone helps pay for it and thus everyone has a stake in it and a say on how it's run. That's what we need, it's OUT of control. It's bleeding the working class dry. We need to start from the drawing board. I've done it, I've done the math, I see no reason why we cannot have one that would benefit this nation in many ways. But people who makes LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of money off our health care "system" do NOT want to see control go to the government. In fact, they don't want ANY control! The federal government is in charge of the general welfare of the nation and it's future and are in charge of our social security system. They are the ones that need to handle this.. It's their job and their responsibility.
fatngassy
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 6:06:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 7:30:51 PM, ldcon wrote:
"Something that benefits everyone and helps ensure a scarce and universally-needed resource is allocated fairly and effectively is of vital interest to the future of the nation, and it's citizens. Should the government have "control" over our health care "system?" Hell yes! They should."

So, a few questions.

Since 1/3 of the annual increase in health costs can be attributed to obesity (Re. McKinsey) what do you feel Government would be justified in doing to deal with these costs?

What's a 'fair' way to allocate healthcare? My concept of "fair" is about $5000 per capita. Whatever indemnity as can be achieved with that amount is what we would all have. Priorities would have to be set. May not cover viagara or knee replacements.:
Will you adjust for lifestyle choices/behavior? No. It's the entire collective - the entire nation, good and bad and ugly. However, it's only natural there would be a huge emphasis on preventative medicine and preventative maintenance.
fatngassy
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 6:10:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 9:26:26 PM, sadolite wrote:
Yes, that would be great. Some bureaucratic jaka$$ in Washington who thinks they know what's best for me and telling me what I can and can't have with regard to my health care choices. Yep that would be just great. And it would be so much more cost efficient to. Just look at govts record at efficiency.

I'm sorry, but when it comes to collecting and disseminating money - there isn't anyone on earth more efficient than the US government. And that's kinda what insurance is all about. And how efficient and cost-effective are the insurance companies, who actually take huge percentages of the paid premiums and invest that money completely on their own behalf?
fatngassy
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 6:13:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 9:30:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
"It's the job of Congress and the federal government IS to provide for the general welfare of the nation. "

WRONG!! It is the govts job to "PROMOTE" not "provide." PROMOTE means govt getting the fck out of the way so charity churches and the private sector can do it.

Trouble is, the private sector isn't going to take care of anyone who doesn't have money, and there just isn't that level of charilty available to help all the people that need this VERY expensive service. Everyone needs to be insured in some way when it comes to health care. It's just so expensive there is no other alternative than this sort of cooperative cost-sharing.
fatngassy
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 6:20:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 10:21:05 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
The four functions of government are; military duties, civic amenities, education, and justice and administration.

Military duties comprise of protection from criminal and foreign use of force against citizens.

Civic amenities comprise of sanitation, proper hygiene, and creating a secure environment for people to live in.

Education comprises of ensuring that the youth of the nation have access to non-partisan education.

Justice and administration is comprised of ensuring that the laws of the land are upheld, and government services are provided in an efficient manner.

These are the four roles of every government. Notice how providing free health care isn't mentioned anywhere in these four categories, health care is not right, it is a privilege.

I'm terribly sorry but health care is a necessity. I don't see it written anywhere in the constitution that we should have a Social Security system either, but the federal government created one so that old people don't have to eat cat food or freeze to death. I don't see it written in the constitution that we should have a space program, or an interstate highway system. The health and welfare of the nation and it's citizens is job#1 of the Congress and the government. Call it "communism" call it "socialism" if you'd like but remember we are a national community and we are a society.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 6:58:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 6:13:45 PM, fatngassy wrote:
At 6/16/2012 9:30:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
"It's the job of Congress and the federal government IS to provide for the general welfare of the nation. "

WRONG!! It is the govts job to "PROMOTE" not "provide." PROMOTE means govt getting the fck out of the way so charity churches and the private sector can do it.


Trouble is, the private sector isn't going to take care of anyone who doesn't have money, and there just isn't that level of charilty available to help all the people that need this VERY expensive service. Everyone needs to be insured in some way when it comes to health care. It's just so expensive there is no other alternative than this sort of cooperative cost-sharing.

Hippocratic Oath, anybody? If a poor person with a heart attack comes into a hospital, it is LEGALLY obliged to treat him.

As for the payment, you have to pay for your car. Your food. Your house. Your clothing. Your accessories. What makes healthcare so different?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
fatngassy
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 6:14:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 6:58:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/25/2012 6:13:45 PM, fatngassy wrote:
At 6/16/2012 9:30:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
"It's the job of Congress and the federal government IS to provide for the general welfare of the nation. "

WRONG!! It is the govts job to "PROMOTE" not "provide." PROMOTE means govt getting the fck out of the way so charity churches and the private sector can do it.


Trouble is, the private sector isn't going to take care of anyone who doesn't have money, and there just isn't that level of charilty available to help all the people that need this VERY expensive service. Everyone needs to be insured in some way when it comes to health care. It's just so expensive there is no other alternative than this sort of cooperative cost-sharing.

Hippocratic Oath, anybody? If a poor person with a heart attack comes into a hospital, it is LEGALLY obliged to treat him.

As for the payment, you have to pay for your car. Your food. Your house. Your clothing. Your accessories. What makes healthcare so different?

Here's what's different: Health care can mean a $12 flu shot or it can mean a $50,000 surgery. There's no way to predict how much it will cost. Health care is so expensive that 99% of the people need to have insurance. It's just the way it is.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 6:57:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 6:14:17 PM, fatngassy wrote:
At 6/25/2012 6:58:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/25/2012 6:13:45 PM, fatngassy wrote:
At 6/16/2012 9:30:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
"It's the job of Congress and the federal government IS to provide for the general welfare of the nation. "

WRONG!! It is the govts job to "PROMOTE" not "provide." PROMOTE means govt getting the fck out of the way so charity churches and the private sector can do it.


Trouble is, the private sector isn't going to take care of anyone who doesn't have money, and there just isn't that level of charilty available to help all the people that need this VERY expensive service. Everyone needs to be insured in some way when it comes to health care. It's just so expensive there is no other alternative than this sort of cooperative cost-sharing.

Hippocratic Oath, anybody? If a poor person with a heart attack comes into a hospital, it is LEGALLY obliged to treat him.

As for the payment, you have to pay for your car. Your food. Your house. Your clothing. Your accessories. What makes healthcare so different?

Here's what's different: Health care can mean a $12 flu shot or it can mean a $50,000 surgery. There's no way to predict how much it will cost. Health care is so expensive that 99% of the people need to have insurance. It's just the way it is.

Food can cost $5 but it can also cost $5000.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
fatngassy
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 9:25:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/26/2012 6:57:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/26/2012 6:14:17 PM, fatngassy wrote:
At 6/25/2012 6:58:14 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/25/2012 6:13:45 PM, fatngassy wrote:
At 6/16/2012 9:30:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
"It's the job of Congress and the federal government IS to provide for the general welfare of the nation. "

WRONG!! It is the govts job to "PROMOTE" not "provide." PROMOTE means govt getting the fck out of the way so charity churches and the private sector can do it.


Trouble is, the private sector isn't going to take care of anyone who doesn't have money, and there just isn't that level of charilty available to help all the people that need this VERY expensive service. Everyone needs to be insured in some way when it comes to health care. It's just so expensive there is no other alternative than this sort of cooperative cost-sharing.

Hippocratic Oath, anybody? If a poor person with a heart attack comes into a hospital, it is LEGALLY obliged to treat him.

As for the payment, you have to pay for your car. Your food. Your house. Your clothing. Your accessories. What makes healthcare so different?

Here's what's different: Health care can mean a $12 flu shot or it can mean a $50,000 surgery. There's no way to predict how much it will cost. Health care is so expensive that 99% of the people need to have insurance. It's just the way it is.

Food can cost $5 but it can also cost $5000.

As far as I know, "food insurance" isn't available. Most people, however, recognize the need for health insurance. As far as hospitals HAVING to treat people.... well somebody still has to pay for that and yes, it's the people who do have insurance, through higher premiums and in higher medical costs in general. Ever wonder why a bandaid in a hospital costs $10?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 11:41:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 9:42:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Regardless of whether we could, the proof needs to be why we SHOULD. Why is health care the job of the state?

Who do you think pays the bill, when uninsured individuals visit the hospital?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 11:47:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 9:26:26 PM, sadolite wrote:
Yes, that would be great. Some bureaucratic jaka$$ in Washington who thinks they know what's best for me and telling me what I can and can't have with regard to my health care choices. Yep that would be just great. And it would be so much more cost efficient to. Just look at govts record at efficiency.

So, you're trying to say private insurer's are not already doing that?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 11:52:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 9:30:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
WRONG!! It is the govts job to "PROMOTE" not "provide." PROMOTE means govt getting the fck out of the way so charity churches and the private sector can do it.

They have done an awesome job so far. So, why is this even a topic of debate?