Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

American healthcare, why do cons hate it?

Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2013 11:23:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Conservatives are have shut down the government and are threatening to shut down the economy all because people want healthcare for all, not just rich white men. Your thoughts?
slo1
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 11:05:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 11:23:52 PM, Sitara wrote:
Conservatives are have shut down the government and are threatening to shut down the economy all because people want healthcare for all, not just rich white men. Your thoughts?

Let's make a correction. They want EMERGENCY health care for ALL paid by companies who offer health insurance to their employees and preventative and non-emergency care for just the middle class and up, again paid for by business.

Until they come out with a mandate that hospitals can turn away all those who can not pay for services then my statement is true.

To answer your question though, the conservative base is anti-gov regulation as a whole except when it suits their tastes such as making it illegal to burn the american flag or restrict abortion.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 11:11:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
For one, Obamacare raised the cost of other healthcare for pretty much everyone. Some healthcare has doubled, others have tripled. It is causing there to be fewer full time employees. Furthermore, it is expensive and is overall bad for our economy.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 11:37:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/16/2013 11:11:41 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
For one, Obamacare raised the cost of other healthcare for pretty much everyone. Some healthcare has doubled, others have tripled. It is causing there to be fewer full time employees. Furthermore, it is expensive and is overall bad for our economy.

I don't believe that any of that is true in any significant number (obviously, outliers always exist). Do you have anything supporting it?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 2:34:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/16/2013 11:11:41 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
For one, Obamacare raised the cost of other healthcare for pretty much everyone. Some healthcare has doubled, others have tripled. It is causing there to be fewer full time employees. Furthermore, it is expensive and is overall bad for our economy.

Yeah, healthcare for people who cannot afford it is such a horrible thing. I guess if Mom has a heart attack, she should die, eh?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 3:31:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/16/2013 2:34:01 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/16/2013 11:11:41 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
For one, Obamacare raised the cost of other healthcare for pretty much everyone. Some healthcare has doubled, others have tripled. It is causing there to be fewer full time employees. Furthermore, it is expensive and is overall bad for our economy.

Yeah, healthcare for people who cannot afford it is such a horrible thing. I guess if Mom has a heart attack, she should die, eh?

And, if people like me can't afford health insurance, I should be subject to more taxes, which I also can't afford? Either way, it sucks to be me.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 3:32:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 11:23:52 PM, Sitara wrote:
Conservatives are have shut down the government and are threatening to shut down the economy all because people want healthcare for all, not just rich white men. Your thoughts?

Hyperbole, much?
It's funny, because I thought the rich didn't have health insurance, since they could just pay the doctors. At least, that's what I thought Michael Moore said.
My work here is, finally, done.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 6:11:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
North Korea provides free health care for everyone, right? Can you figure out what the problem is?

In the US it is against the law to refuse treatment due to inability to pay. Traditionally care has been supplied through an emergency room system. The reason the US has an expensive emergency room system at the center of health care is that the US has unequaled emergency care needs: traffic accidents, heart attacks (from poor life style), drug overdoses, suicide attempts, gang violence. A woman in Japan had a brain aneurism, and it took calls to 19 hospitals to find one that would treat her. In the US, if you have an expensive health insurance and need immediate treatment, you go to the same emergency room as everyone else.

In the US, if you avoid traffic accidents, suicide, drug overdose, and gang violence life expectancy is the longest in the world -- and that's despite obesity, smoking, and fast food. East Asian women live longer in New Jersey than in Japan or China.

If you haven't figured it out, the promise of government care does not equate to actual care. It adds an enormous bureaucracy to make rules and an even larger bureaucracy to administer compliance. Moving decisions from doctors to bureaucrats lowers the quality of care, and rule enforcement wastes a great deal of money.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 1:46:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/16/2013 6:11:37 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
North Korea provides free health care for everyone, right? Can you figure out what the problem is?

Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. North Korea has many problems with its economy due to the fact that they completely isolate themselves and have very few natural resources of their own, in addition to the fact that people there probably spend more time worshiping their leader than they do working. Under the same logic, I could say that Norway has free health care for everyone, therefore there is no reason for us not to have it. Can you figure out what the problem is?

In the US it is against the law to refuse treatment due to inability to pay. Traditionally care has been supplied through an emergency room system. The reason the US has an expensive emergency room system at the center of health care is that the US has unequaled emergency care needs: traffic accidents, heart attacks (from poor life style), drug overdoses, suicide attempts, gang violence. A woman in Japan had a brain aneurism, and it took calls to 19 hospitals to find one that would treat her. In the US, if you have an expensive health insurance and need immediate treatment, you go to the same emergency room as everyone else.

Caveat: In Japan, people visit hospitals 4 times as much as Americans do. Their healthcare is also almost three times cheaper, which can account for a lot of the usage. There is admittedly a high volume of usage in urban areas in Japan which would benefit from some reform. This does not require the entire system to be scrapped.

In the US, if you avoid traffic accidents, suicide, drug overdose, and gang violence life expectancy is the longest in the world -- and that's despite obesity, smoking, and fast food. East Asian women live longer in New Jersey than in Japan or China.

Nice Texas Sharpshooter fallacy! At least this time you're being open about your very specific data cluster.

Should I mention that Japan has a life expectancy that is 4.5 years longer than that of the US? That is an overall statistic, not an extremely specific one.

If you haven't figured it out, the promise of government care does not equate to actual care. It adds an enormous bureaucracy to make rules and an even larger bureaucracy to administer compliance. Moving decisions from doctors to bureaucrats lowers the quality of care, and rule enforcement wastes a great deal of money.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 1:58:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is a parody of the American Rifle debate. Not all conservatives oppose healthcare rights. When I was a conservative, I supported healthcare rights.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 10:02:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 1:46:58 PM, drhead wrote:
At 10/16/2013 6:11:37 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
North Korea provides free health care for everyone, right? Can you figure out what the problem is?

Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. North Korea has many problems with its economy due to the fact that they completely isolate themselves and have very few natural resources of their own, in addition to the fact that people there probably spend more time worshiping their leader than they do working. Under the same logic, I could say that Norway has free health care for everyone, therefore there is no reason for us not to have it. Can you figure out what the problem is?

The fallacy is that declaring free health care does not provide free health care. Why not use Abu Dhabi as an example? Norway has substantial North Sea oil wealth, and unlike the U.S., no large non-working segment of their population. The US has the cost of a very expensive emergency health care system, which dispenses free care and which everyone uses alike. The country cannot afford a substantial expansion of costs. the cost comes mainly from the costs of compliance, not the extra health care provided.

Caveat: In Japan, people visit hospitals 4 times as much as Americans do. Their healthcare is also almost three times cheaper, which can account for a lot of the usage. There is admittedly a high volume of usage in urban areas in Japan which would benefit from some reform. This does not require the entire system to be scrapped.

The Japanese have a very healthy lifestyle. There is good agreement among people who study these things that 80% of health is lifestyle. Also note that the Japanese system has the individual paying 30% and the government 70%. (A non-profit city-run hospital near San Francisco charges about $9000 per day, and that doesn't include doctors fees. Suburban Florida is about $7000.) The Japanese have many more hospital visits because that is where routine care like vaccinations are dispensed. The Japanese have the large cost advantage of not having liability problems that demand expensive insurance policies and excessive testing.

I'm not sure exactly what is included in Japanese hospitals. A woman in a blog post said some Japanese hosp[itals provide laundry and others do not, for example. I know that in Taiwan, if a woman is admitted for more than a brief stay, they shave her head to eliminate the expense of hair care. In Taiwan, it's very common for families to hire private nursing services for their family members, because the staff care is so minimal. Such are wonders of free stuff.

In the US, if you avoid traffic accidents, suicide, drug overdose, and gang violence life expectancy is the longest in the world -- and that's despite obesity, smoking, and fast food. East Asian women live longer in New Jersey than in Japan or China.

Nice Texas Sharpshooter fallacy! At least this time you're being open about your very specific data cluster.

Explain the fallacy. If you live to be 55 in the US, your life expectancy is the longest in the world. Traffic accidents, suicide, alcohol abuse, drug overdose, and gang violence are not health care problems, they are social problems. Providing more free health care will do nothing whatsoever to extend life expectancy, because emergency health care is already free. Say exactly why it is a fallacy to exclude problems unrelated to health care from measures of the quality of health care?

Should I mention that Japan has a life expectancy that is 4.5 years longer than that of the US? That is an overall statistic, not an extremely specific one.

The Japanese have virtually none of the problems of traffic accidents, drug overdoses, and gang violence that the US has, and that entirely accounts for the longer life span. If you correct for that, the US life span is longer. That's despite inferior US health lifestyles. Japan and the US both have suicide problems, but that doesn't dominate the stats.

If you haven't figured it out, the promise of government care does not equate to actual care. It adds an enormous bureaucracy to make rules and an even larger bureaucracy to administer compliance. Moving decisions from doctors to bureaucrats lowers the quality of care, and rule enforcement wastes a great deal of money.
Garm
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 6:13:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/16/2013 11:11:41 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
For one, Obamacare raised the cost of other health care for pretty much everyone. Some health care has doubled, others have tripled. It is causing there to be fewer full time employees. Furthermore, it is expensive and is overall bad for our economy.

I find that hard to believe. US health care costs 2 600 billion per year. Four times the US military budget. 8300 $ per citizen. Twice as much as other nations spend, either as a % of GDP or per person. The current system wastes 2x the US military budget per year.
In fact US costs are so high, that the amount spent on government health care -i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, VHA, IA, childrens, etc- is over 4000 $ per person. To cover 28 % of the population. More than all but two other nations use to cover 100 % of the population. With better results.

It is not possible to double health care costs in the US.

At 10/16/2013 6:11:37 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
North Korea provides free health care for everyone, right? Can you figure out what the problem is?

In the US it is against the law to refuse treatment due to inability to pay. Traditionally care has been supplied through an emergency room system. The reason the US has an expensive emergency room system at the center of health care is that the US has unequaled emergency care needs: traffic accidents, heart attacks (from poor life style), drug overdoses, suicide attempts, gang violence. A woman in Japan had a brain aneurism, and it took calls to 19 hospitals to find one that would treat her. In the US, if you have an expensive health insurance and need immediate treatment, you go to the same emergency room as everyone else.

In the US, if you avoid traffic accidents, suicide, drug overdose, and gang violence life expectancy is the longest in the world -- and that's despite obesity, smoking, and fast food. East Asian women live longer in New Jersey than in Japan or China.

If you haven't figured it out, the promise of government care does not equate to actual care. It adds an enormous bureaucracy to make rules and an even larger bureaucracy to administer compliance. Moving decisions from doctors to bureaucrats lowers the quality of care, and rule enforcement wastes a great deal of money.

No. More than no.

First off the entire notion that accidents and violence is a significant factor in the US lifespan deficit is laughable. Every study shows that the effect is tiny. Except one: Ofstedth and Schneider (sp?), a pair of economists working for a rightwing thinktank tried to do health care research, and calculated that the US would have the best lifespan if not for accidents and violence. Their paper was so shredded by maths people on publishing, that the authors had to admit to the WSJ that they'd knowingly used a wrong method, because it was simpler. They'd known their results were wrong, and they actually admitted they'd never intended them to be right!
The paper is mainly used to demonstrate confirmation bias these days.

For the mathematically curious, the difference in average lifespan between the US and the Swiss is 3 years. How many 18-year olds need to die to cut 3 years off the average lifespan of a 310 million population? Hint: More than the number of soldiers the US lost in WW2.

As for the bureaucracy thing...a big part of the reason the US has such huge health care expenses is being the world bureaucracy champion. 600 000 people in medical insurance, hospitals with as many people doing billing, credit checking, dealing with insurance company paperwork as they got beds! These are jobs that just don't exist in single payer systems.

It shouldn't be a surprise. The US has a plethora of gatekeepers, systems and companies, each with their own paperwork. Of course that is inefficient compared to the nations that provides one s system and lets people buy more if they want.

I've worked in health care in the US and a couple of European countries, and do you know what the paperwork is when we get a patient in Europe? We ask his name. Fill in his journal. That's it.

I'd recommend reading some Kenneth Arrow and Health Care Economics in general, because claiming that UHCs have more bureaucracy is not just wrong, not just diametrically opposite how it really works...but by an incredible magnitude. Its like saying that Rhode Island is a much, much larger state than Texas.
Garm
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 6:20:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 10:02:50 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/17/2013 1:46:58 PM, drhead wrote:
At 10/16/2013 6:11:37 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
North Korea provides free health care for everyone, right? Can you figure out what the problem is?

Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. North Korea has many problems with its economy due to the fact that they completely isolate themselves and have very few natural resources of their own, in addition to the fact that people there probably spend more time worshiping their leader than they do working. Under the same logic, I could say that Norway has free health care for everyone, therefore there is no reason for us not to have it. Can you figure out what the problem is?

The fallacy is that declaring free health care does not provide free health care. Why not use Abu Dhabi as an example? Norway has substantial North Sea oil wealth, and unlike the U.S., no large non-working segment of their population. The US has the cost of a very expensive emergency health care system, which dispenses free care and which everyone uses alike. The country cannot afford a substantial expansion of costs. the cost comes mainly from the costs of compliance, not the extra health care provided.


Actually, Norway has one of the largest fraction of people on permanent disability in the world, and all the oil wealth is saved up in a sovereign wealth fund and does not go into the economy.

As for "free" health care...well the American taxpayer pays more tax towards government health care, while receiving none in return. A taxpayer in Sweden, Spain, Finland or the UK pays less tax towards government supplied health care, and receives full coverage. From the POW of the American taxpayer that is free health care plus money.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 12:25:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 6:13:33 AM, Garm wrote:
It is not possible to double health care costs in the US.

What is doubling is insurance premiums. All that has hit so far is the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions. That's making about a 40% increase for older people and about 200% to 300% for younger people. I don't know what will happen to total costs. Since there is no reason to buy insurance before a person gets seriously ill, except for the minor penalty. It may be that the number of people carrying insurance drops. Before Obamacare, there were 45 million of the 310 million citizens uninsured. CBO says that Obamacare will leave 15 million still uninsured.

At 10/16/2013 6:11:37 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
North Korea provides free health care for everyone, right? Can you figure out what the problem is?

In the US it is against the law to refuse treatment due to inability to pay. Traditionally care has been supplied through an emergency room system. The reason the US has an expensive emergency room system at the center of health care is that the US has unequaled emergency care needs: traffic accidents, heart attacks (from poor life style), drug overdoses, suicide attempts, gang violence. A woman in Japan had a brain aneurism, and it took calls to 19 hospitals to find one that would treat her. In the US, if you have an expensive health insurance and need immediate treatment, you go to the same emergency room as everyone else.

In the US, if you avoid traffic accidents, suicide, drug overdose, and gang violence life expectancy is the longest in the world -- and that's despite obesity, smoking, and fast food. East Asian women live longer in New Jersey than in Japan or China.

If you haven't figured it out, the promise of government care does not equate to actual care. It adds an enormous bureaucracy to make rules and an even larger bureaucracy to administer compliance. Moving decisions from doctors to bureaucrats lowers the quality of care, and rule enforcement wastes a great deal of money.

No. More than no.

First off the entire notion that accidents and violence is a significant factor in the US lifespan deficit is laughable. Every study shows that the effect is tiny.

Let's do some numbers. The CDC reports: "The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (365 000 deaths; 15.2%) [corrected], and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75 000), toxic agents (55 000), motor vehicle crashes (43 000), incidents involving firearms (29 000), sexual behaviors (20 000), and illicit use of drugs (17 000)."

So accidents, alcohol, and other acute lifestyle-related deaths (other than tobacco, diet, and exercise) amount to 194,000, or 8% of all deaths. Separately, CDC reports than alcohol reduces life expectancy by 30 years. If 30 years were a typical reduction, then the total reduction in lifespan due to those causes is 2.4 years. If, say, half of the premature deaths were 50 years short (death at age 28), then it would cut about 3 years off live expectancy.

There is another problem of accounting for infant mortality, which average 0's into life expectancy. Many countries do not count infant mortality in their statistics, but the US does.

Overall, it seems to me fair to say that only about 3 years of loss of life expectancy is attributed to alcohol, drugs, and the rest.

Going back to overall lifestyle, it accounts for 41% of all deaths. If life expectancy is shortened by an average of say 15 years by lifestyle, that would be a 6 year reduction due to lifestyle.

In comparison with Japan, lung cancer is about the same as the US. They have a higher death rate from stomach cancer, which I've heard attributed to too much salt in the diet. Otherwise, the US has lower rates for diseases that benefit from early detection. That tells me that the Japanese advantage in life expectancy is due to lifestyle not the health care system.

For the mathematically curious, the difference in average lifespan between the US and the Swiss is 3 years. How many 18-year olds need to die to cut 3 years off the average lifespan of a 310 million population? Hint: More than the number of soldiers the US lost in WW2.

No, I did the math for you.

As for the bureaucracy thing...a big part of the reason the US has such huge health care expenses is being the world bureaucracy champion.

Agreed. Obamacare puts yet another layer of bureaucracy in place, making the problem much worse. there are already 15,000 pages of new rules, and they are just getting warmed up.

It shouldn't be a surprise. The US has a plethora of gatekeepers, systems and companies, each with their own paperwork. Of course that is inefficient compared to the nations that provides one s system and lets people buy more if they want.

Understand that fear of lawsuits produces a lot of the paperwork. Providers have to document that they followed every procedure and option perfectly, and that they tested for everything possible. Other countries don't have that problem. Also, the amount of checking required depends on how much fraud is committed. The US has a larger fraud problem than many other countries.

I've worked in health care in the US and a couple of European countries, and do you know what the paperwork is when we get a patient in Europe? We ask his name. Fill in his journal. That's it.

In return for that, people get poor care. To get good care, people must seek it outside the public system. The US will probably end up with that arrangement as well. The promise of free stuff is irresistable.

I'd recommend reading some Kenneth Arrow and Health Care Economics in general, because claiming that UHCs have more bureaucracy is not just wrong, not just diametrically opposite how it really works...but by an incredible magnitude. Its like saying that Rhode Island is a much, much larger state than Texas.

I recommend you read up on Obamacare. The cost savings are supposed to result from massive government rules improving efficiency.
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 12:36:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 11:23:52 PM, Sitara wrote:
Conservatives are have shut down the government and are threatening to shut down the economy all because people want healthcare for all, not just rich white men. Your thoughts?

I think you got it wrong. All of it.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 2:07:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/15/2013 11:23:52 PM, Sitara wrote:
Conservatives are have shut down the government and are threatening to shut down the economy

To start... They have several bills that didn't touch Obamacare... One that was actually written up in a negotiation with Senate Democrats... The same Democrats who would vote against it... They wrote up the bill with Republicans and then shot it down.

It seems more like Democrats wanted to shutdown the Government because they knew the Republicans would get blamed.

all because people want healthcare for all, not just rich white men. Your thoughts?

Second of all... Most middle class and poor had healthcare... 90%+ was happy with it too. The idea that only rich white men received Healthcare shows a strict bias against the wealthy, white, and male population (and a bit of lacking knowledge on the issues). You didn't list off wealthy black men... Or wealthy black women... Or wealthy white women...

30%+ of the uninsured had more than enough money to pay for insurance. The idea that only rich men had insurance is blatant stupidity used to gain the votes of uninformed people.

----------------------------------------------------------
If you came here to spread your ignorance and bias, you have done a poor job.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 2:12:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
all because people want healthcare for all, not just rich white men. Your thoughts?


You also forgot that people without insurance receives the same treatment as the insured in all cases. Most hospitals over benefits to the uninsured. You didn't need to tax $180 billion+ a year to obtain universal health coverage.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 4:46:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 2:12:23 PM, donald.keller wrote:
all because people want healthcare for all, not just rich white men. Your thoughts?


You also forgot that people without insurance receives the same treatment as the insured in all cases. Most hospitals over benefits to the uninsured. You didn't need to tax $180 billion+ a year to obtain universal health coverage.

My mother cannot afford healthcare without the Affordable Care Act, and I cannot afford healthcare without Medicaid and Medicare, without which I would be dead right now, so save it.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 6:39:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 1:58:11 PM, Sitara wrote:
This is a parody of the American Rifle debate. Not all conservatives oppose healthcare rights. When I was a conservative, I supported healthcare rights.

It's not a right though, you have a right to your life, liberty and property, you don't have a right to other peoples services.
Theoretically at least, in practice that hasn't been the case.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 6:40:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 4:46:23 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/18/2013 2:12:23 PM, donald.keller wrote:
all because people want healthcare for all, not just rich white men. Your thoughts?


You also forgot that people without insurance receives the same treatment as the insured in all cases. Most hospitals over benefits to the uninsured. You didn't need to tax $180 billion+ a year to obtain universal health coverage.

My mother cannot afford healthcare without the Affordable Care Act, and I cannot afford healthcare without Medicaid and Medicare, without which I would be dead right now, so save it.

Well shoot you just won the argument, it saved your life so it's sacrosanct, no need debate it further.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 6:45:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 6:39:03 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 10/17/2013 1:58:11 PM, Sitara wrote:
This is a parody of the American Rifle debate. Not all conservatives oppose healthcare rights. When I was a conservative, I supported healthcare rights.

It's not a right though, you have a right to your life, liberty and property, you don't have a right to other peoples services.
Theoretically at least, in practice that hasn't been the case.

My body, my right, my choice. I have the right to choose health for myself.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 6:46:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 6:45:35 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/18/2013 6:39:03 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 10/17/2013 1:58:11 PM, Sitara wrote:
This is a parody of the American Rifle debate. Not all conservatives oppose healthcare rights. When I was a conservative, I supported healthcare rights.

It's not a right though, you have a right to your life, liberty and property, you don't have a right to other peoples services.
Theoretically at least, in practice that hasn't been the case.

My body, my right, my choice. I have the right to choose health for myself.

Right and you can go to med school and do whatever you want to your body.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 6:46:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 6:40:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 10/18/2013 4:46:23 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/18/2013 2:12:23 PM, donald.keller wrote:
all because people want healthcare for all, not just rich white men. Your thoughts?


You also forgot that people without insurance receives the same treatment as the insured in all cases. Most hospitals over benefits to the uninsured. You didn't need to tax $180 billion+ a year to obtain universal health coverage.

My mother cannot afford healthcare without the Affordable Care Act, and I cannot afford healthcare without Medicaid and Medicare, without which I would be dead right now, so save it.

Well shoot you just won the argument, it saved your life so it's sacrosanct, no need debate it further.
So the fact that I would be dead without healthcare means nothing to you? Do you hear yourself?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 6:47:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 6:46:34 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/18/2013 6:40:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 10/18/2013 4:46:23 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/18/2013 2:12:23 PM, donald.keller wrote:
all because people want healthcare for all, not just rich white men. Your thoughts?


You also forgot that people without insurance receives the same treatment as the insured in all cases. Most hospitals over benefits to the uninsured. You didn't need to tax $180 billion+ a year to obtain universal health coverage.

My mother cannot afford healthcare without the Affordable Care Act, and I cannot afford healthcare without Medicaid and Medicare, without which I would be dead right now, so save it.

Well shoot you just won the argument, it saved your life so it's sacrosanct, no need debate it further.
So the fact that I would be dead without healthcare means nothing to you? Do you hear yourself?

Didn't you hear me? It's no longer debatable, it saved your life so it's above discussion.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 6:50:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 6:47:35 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 10/18/2013 6:46:34 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/18/2013 6:40:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 10/18/2013 4:46:23 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/18/2013 2:12:23 PM, donald.keller wrote:
all because people want healthcare for all, not just rich white men. Your thoughts?


You also forgot that people without insurance receives the same treatment as the insured in all cases. Most hospitals over benefits to the uninsured. You didn't need to tax $180 billion+ a year to obtain universal health coverage.

My mother cannot afford healthcare without the Affordable Care Act, and I cannot afford healthcare without Medicaid and Medicare, without which I would be dead right now, so save it.

Well shoot you just won the argument, it saved your life so it's sacrosanct, no need debate it further.
So the fact that I would be dead without healthcare means nothing to you? Do you hear yourself?

Didn't you hear me? It's no longer debatable, it saved your life so it's above discussion.

My apologies. I thought you were teasing me.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 6:53:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just like how people who weren't aborted automatically win abortion arguments, who protected their lives with a gun win gun control arguments and lost relatives in 911 win foreign policy arguments.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 11:06:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 6:53:49 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Just like how people who weren't aborted automatically win abortion arguments, who protected their lives with a gun win gun control arguments and lost relatives in 911 win foreign policy arguments.

So you were being sarcastic? Another fine example of CONservative tolerance. Bleh. I am so sorry for valuing my life enough to seek lifesaving healthcare for myself and others like me, good sir. Will you please, please forgive me for wanting to live? Rolls eyes.
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 11:08:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 6:46:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 10/18/2013 6:45:35 PM, Sitara wrote:
At 10/18/2013 6:39:03 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 10/17/2013 1:58:11 PM, Sitara wrote:
This is a parody of the American Rifle debate. Not all conservatives oppose healthcare rights. When I was a conservative, I supported healthcare rights.

It's not a right though, you have a right to your life, liberty and property, you don't have a right to other peoples services.
Theoretically at least, in practice that hasn't been the case.

My body, my right, my choice. I have the right to choose health for myself.

Right and you can go to med school and do whatever you want to your body.

i should not have to be a doctor to have bodily autonomy. I have the right to choose health for my body, and you have no right to stop me.
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 11:09:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 1:46:58 PM, drhead wrote:
At 10/16/2013 6:11:37 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
North Korea provides free health care for everyone, right? Can you figure out what the problem is?

Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. North Korea has many problems with its economy due to the fact that they completely isolate themselves and have very few natural resources of their own, in addition to the fact that people there probably spend more time worshiping their leader than they do working. Under the same logic, I could say that Norway has free health care for everyone, therefore there is no reason for us not to have it. Can you figure out what the problem is?

In the US it is against the law to refuse treatment due to inability to pay. Traditionally care has been supplied through an emergency room system. The reason the US has an expensive emergency room system at the center of health care is that the US has unequaled emergency care needs: traffic accidents, heart attacks (from poor life style), drug overdoses, suicide attempts, gang violence. A woman in Japan had a brain aneurism, and it took calls to 19 hospitals to find one that would treat her. In the US, if you have an expensive health insurance and need immediate treatment, you go to the same emergency room as everyone else.

Caveat: In Japan, people visit hospitals 4 times as much as Americans do. Their healthcare is also almost three times cheaper, which can account for a lot of the usage. There is admittedly a high volume of usage in urban areas in Japan which would benefit from some reform. This does not require the entire system to be scrapped.

In the US, if you avoid traffic accidents, suicide, drug overdose, and gang violence life expectancy is the longest in the world -- and that's despite obesity, smoking, and fast food. East Asian women live longer in New Jersey than in Japan or China.

Nice Texas Sharpshooter fallacy! At least this time you're being open about your very specific data cluster.

Should I mention that Japan has a life expectancy that is 4.5 years longer than that of the US? That is an overall statistic, not an extremely specific one.

If you haven't figured it out, the promise of government care does not equate to actual care. It adds an enormous bureaucracy to make rules and an even larger bureaucracy to administer compliance. Moving decisions from doctors to bureaucrats lowers the quality of care, and rule enforcement wastes a great deal of money.
What is a sharpshooter fallacy?