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

Republicans wanting to repeal Obamacare

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 8:34:33 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I really don't understand the mentality of Republicans who time and again try to repeal Obamacare. Just a few of the major benefits it provides:

1. Stopping insurance companies from denying you coverage or charging you more based on health status.

2. Stopping insurance companies from dropping you when you are sick or if you make an honest mistake on your application.

3. Preventing gender discrimination.

4. Stopping insurance companies from imposing unjustified rate hikes.

5. Doing away with life-time and annual dollar limits.

6. Giving you the right to a rapid appeal of insurance company decisions.

7. Expanding coverage to tens of millions by subsidizing health insurance costs through the Health Insurance Marketplaces (HealthCare.Gov and the state-run Marketplaces).

8. Expanding Medicaid to millions in states that chose to expand the program.

9. Providing tax breaks to small businesses for offering health insurance to their employees.

10. Requiring large businesses to insure employees.

11. Requiring all insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

12. Improving Medicare for seniors.

13. Ensuring all plans cover minimum benefits like limits on cost sharing and ten essential benefits including free preventive care, OB-GYN services with no referrals, free birth control, and coverage for emergency room visits out-of-network.

====

So, those are just a few benefits from Obamacare. I don't get <i>what</i> the republicans who are trying to repeal it are hoping to gain other than some messed up vision of not requiring insuring companies to take people with pre-existing conditions or actually charging people more based on Health Status. Obamacare is probably one of the best plan implemented during the Obama administration and the GOP just doesn't know when to let a good thing stand. Republicans, what's your problem?
YYW
Posts: 36,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 2:49:31 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
There is no rational reason to repeal Obamacare. The reason it comes up is because Republicans have to "contrast" Obama, and in so doing, lie to the American people about what impact it's having.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 11:42:59 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 8:34:33 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I really don't understand the mentality of Republicans who time and again try to repeal Obamacare. Just a few of the major benefits it provides:

1. Stopping insurance companies from denying you coverage or charging you more based on health status.

This would be bad for healthcare providers; why should they be forced to receive the same amount of money from a person who's more likely to need require healthcare services (I.e. a person who is more likely to cost the healthcare providers money)?

2. Stopping insurance companies from dropping you when you are sick or if you make an honest mistake on your application.

3. Preventing gender discrimination.

Why, whenever there are existing differences in male and female anatomy which are significant enough to make a big difference in health?

4. Stopping insurance companies from imposing unjustified rate hikes.

5. Doing away with life-time and annual dollar limits.

6. Giving you the right to a rapid appeal of insurance company decisions.

7. Expanding coverage to tens of millions by subsidizing health insurance costs through the Health Insurance Marketplaces (HealthCare.Gov and the state-run Marketplaces).

So it is in a way a form of redistribution.

8. Expanding Medicaid to millions in states that chose to expand the program.

A form of redistribution.

9. Providing tax breaks to small businesses for offering health insurance to their employees.

10. Requiring large businesses to insure employees.

Why should large businesses be forced to do this?

11. Requiring all insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Again, they'd be more likely to lose money off these people.

12. Improving Medicare for seniors.

Redistribution.

13. Ensuring all plans cover minimum benefits like limits on cost sharing and ten essential benefits including free preventive care, OB-GYN services with no referrals, free birth control, and coverage for emergency room visits out-of-network.

====

So, those are just a few benefits from Obamacare. I don't get <i>what</i> the republicans who are trying to repeal it are hoping to gain other than some messed up vision of not requiring insuring companies to take people with pre-existing conditions or actually charging people more based on Health Status. Obamacare is probably one of the best plan implemented during the Obama administration and the GOP just doesn't know when to let a good thing stand. Republicans, what's your problem?

Regulations which would prevent genuinely unfair business practices would be good, but a lot of this also consists of redistribution and the placing of unfair rules on the healthcare industry.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 12:35:41 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 11:42:59 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's not just simple redistribution.

Unless you are a very sick, poor, female, you WILL be paying more, not even calculating costs from historical government incompetence.

Traditional welfare payments would have been far more helpful and cheaper redistribution method.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 1:16:20 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 11:42:59 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

First off, I'm a little puzzled as to why you care about the "Health Care Providers" or "Insurance Companies." Either you are a CEO/top executive of such a company or you are a young person who has some sort of misguided anarchist ideal. That aside -

Healthcare providers can absorb the cost. We're talking about large companies dealing in billions of dollars of sales. The people who can't absorb the cost are people with pre-existing conditions. For many of these, the price of healthcare is so high that they can't afford to take care of themselves. They can't get insurance because the insurance companies won't take them on without charging exorbitant premiums. When Healthcare becomes unaffordable to the extent that a good percentage of people are unable to visit a doctor, then something is very wrong with the country's healthcare system.

Indeed the insurance companies will be more likely to lose money off of some people. That's the point. Insurance companies don't exist in a vacuum. They use the same resources that the rest of society does. A company could not have been built without using resources from society. So, it is only fair that we implement rules and regulations for how companies should function. Allowing insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions means that people with pre-existing conditions will find it impossible to get coverage at all which is a greater evil to society.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 1:26:07 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 1:16:20 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 1/4/2016 11:42:59 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

First off, I'm a little puzzled as to why you care about the "Health Care Providers" or "Insurance Companies." Either you are a CEO/top executive of such a company or you are a young person who has some sort of misguided anarchist ideal. That aside -

I do not care for the idea of stealing from somebody else for my own benefit.

Healthcare providers can absorb the cost. We're talking about large companies dealing in billions of dollars of sales. The people who can't absorb the cost are people with pre-existing conditions. For many of these, the price of healthcare is so high that they can't afford to take care of themselves. They can't get insurance because the insurance companies won't take them on without charging exorbitant premiums. When Healthcare becomes unaffordable to the extent that a good percentage of people are unable to visit a doctor, then something is very wrong with the country's healthcare system.

We're talking about millions of Americans and potentially billions of dollars for these certain companies to lose; what's being proposed in this regard is more or less forced charity.

Indeed the insurance companies will be more likely to lose money off of some people. That's the point. Insurance companies don't exist in a vacuum. They use the same resources that the rest of society does. A company could not have been built without using resources from society. So, it is only fair that we implement rules and regulations for how companies should function. Allowing insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions means that people with pre-existing conditions will find it impossible to get coverage at all which is a greater evil to society.

If Insurance Companies pay their taxes that should be enough.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 1:46:39 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
So, is this all that republicans can come up with? Someone post some serious reasons. I'm sure they exist even if I'll vehemently disagree with them.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 1:55:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
But I really am curious. Let's say you are a lower middle-class person who has some pre-existing condition that makes it difficult to get insured and you are barely making enough to make ends meet. No insurance company is going to cover you because of your pre-existing condition. Your employer won't provide insurance because as you so delightfully pointed out, this should not be a requirement. So, if you have a health problem and are unable to pay your bills, you just plan to die while arguing that insurance companies have the right to practice business how they want?

In some countries, healthcare is cheap relative to income per capita. You can just walk into a clinic and see a doctor and once you are done, you pay and leave. The United States doesn't have that. It's impossible to get health care at a resonable price unless you have insurance. Insurance is pretty much mandatory. That's why we need rules and limits on what insurance companies can do in a way that will benefit society.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 9:01:36 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 1:46:39 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
So, is this all that republicans can come up with? Someone post some serious reasons. I'm sure they exist even if I'll vehemently disagree with them.

Pretty much. They believe their stupid, abstract libertarian notions of "freedom" and "rights" outweigh concerns regarding human welfare.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 10:18:16 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 9:01:36 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/5/2016 1:46:39 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
So, is this all that republicans can come up with? Someone post some serious reasons. I'm sure they exist even if I'll vehemently disagree with them.

Pretty much. They believe their stupid, abstract libertarian notions of "freedom" and "rights" outweigh concerns regarding human welfare.

Hey, I'm a libertarian yet support Obamacare.

Just wanted to make it clear that not all libertarians dislike it, and I don't think it goes too far against my own notions of freedom and rights.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 11:19:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 10:18:16 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/5/2016 9:01:36 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/5/2016 1:46:39 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
So, is this all that republicans can come up with? Someone post some serious reasons. I'm sure they exist even if I'll vehemently disagree with them.

Pretty much. They believe their stupid, abstract libertarian notions of "freedom" and "rights" outweigh concerns regarding human welfare.

Hey, I'm a libertarian yet support Obamacare.

Just wanted to make it clear that not all libertarians dislike it, and I don't think it goes too far against my own notions of freedom and rights.

You don't seem to be very libertarian, based on the views I've seen you express. I'm referring more to the moralizers who naively believe that concepts such as "absolute property rights" can be objectively justified, and self-righteously expect everyone to share their beliefs.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 11:36:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 11:19:12 PM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/5/2016 10:18:16 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 1/5/2016 9:01:36 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/5/2016 1:46:39 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
So, is this all that republicans can come up with? Someone post some serious reasons. I'm sure they exist even if I'll vehemently disagree with them.

Pretty much. They believe their stupid, abstract libertarian notions of "freedom" and "rights" outweigh concerns regarding human welfare.

Hey, I'm a libertarian yet support Obamacare.

Just wanted to make it clear that not all libertarians dislike it, and I don't think it goes too far against my own notions of freedom and rights.

You don't seem to be very libertarian, based on the views I've seen you express. I'm referring more to the moralizers who naively believe that concepts such as "absolute property rights" can be objectively justified, and self-righteously expect everyone to share their beliefs.

Ehh, idk. After taking the political compass test again recently I got a

Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.1

I do understand the distinction you were making though, and was mostly just busting your chops last night :)
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 4:54:52 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 1:46:39 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
So, is this all that republicans can come up with? Someone post some serious reasons. I'm sure they exist even if I'll vehemently disagree with them.

I think that better healthcare services and affordability would be found in a truly free capitalistic approach to healthcare.

Hell if a free market system isn't viable in the current political climate then a single payer system would be better than this. I don't really see how anybody on the right or left could support that bill.

There's a bunch of hidden stuff in the bill that gets overlooked as well. For example it is what like 10,000 pages full of legalese, so even if you find the time to actually read it as a private citizen, you likely won't understand the legalese.

Do you agree with everything in the Obamacare bill?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 4:59:12 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 1:55:58 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
But I really am curious. Let's say you are a lower middle-class person who has some pre-existing condition that makes it difficult to get insured and you are barely making enough to make ends meet. No insurance company is going to cover you because of your pre-existing condition. Your employer won't provide insurance because as you so delightfully pointed out, this should not be a requirement. So, if you have a health problem and are unable to pay your bills, you just plan to die while arguing that insurance companies have the right to practice business how they want?

In some countries, healthcare is cheap relative to income per capita. You can just walk into a clinic and see a doctor and once you are done, you pay and leave. The United States doesn't have that. It's impossible to get health care at a resonable price unless you have insurance. Insurance is pretty much mandatory. That's why we need rules and limits on what insurance companies can do in a way that will benefit society.

When the medical industry was more free market, doctors would often view it as a moral obligation to take on a certain percentage of charity cases. it was rare to see a doctor not do any charity work
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 5:03:07 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 9:01:36 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/5/2016 1:46:39 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
So, is this all that republicans can come up with? Someone post some serious reasons. I'm sure they exist even if I'll vehemently disagree with them.

Pretty much. They believe their stupid, abstract libertarian notions of "freedom" and "rights" outweigh concerns regarding human welfare.

Actually those things contribute more to human welfare than socialism, as can be seen on the economic freedom index that measures how socialist a system is. The more free an economy the better the economy, typically. While the more socialist an economy is, the worse it performs economically.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 5:10:31 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 1:55:58 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
But I really am curious. Let's say you are a lower middle-class person who has some pre-existing condition that makes it difficult to get insured and you are barely making enough to make ends meet. No insurance company is going to cover you because of your pre-existing condition. Your employer won't provide insurance because as you so delightfully pointed out, this should not be a requirement. So, if you have a health problem and are unable to pay your bills, you just plan to die while arguing that insurance companies have the right to practice business how they want?

In some countries, healthcare is cheap relative to income per capita. You can just walk into a clinic and see a doctor and once you are done, you pay and leave. The United States doesn't have that. It's impossible to get health care at a resonable price unless you have insurance. Insurance is pretty much mandatory. That's why we need rules and limits on what insurance companies can do in a way that will benefit society.

I don't get this. You point out the problem with the cost of healthcare, but instead of punishing the hospitals and doctors that overcharge, you want to punish the insurance company. Why not just find ways to disincentivize overpriced medical services?
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 5:14:33 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 4:54:52 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 1/5/2016 1:46:39 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
So, is this all that republicans can come up with? Someone post some serious reasons. I'm sure they exist even if I'll vehemently disagree with them.

I think that better healthcare services and affordability would be found in a truly free capitalistic approach to healthcare.

Hell if a free market system isn't viable in the current political climate then a single payer system would be better than this. I don't really see how anybody on the right or left could support that bill.

There's a bunch of hidden stuff in the bill that gets overlooked as well. For example it is what like 10,000 pages full of legalese, so even if you find the time to actually read it as a private citizen, you likely won't understand the legalese.

Do you agree with everything in the Obamacare bill?

Do you support free market for services like law enforcement and firefighting?

Not everything can fall smoothly into the free market paradigm. By having services like Law Enforcement (and I argue, Healthcare as well) on a pay-per-view basis, it creates a huge inequality in that only some people have access to them. Part of being a society and not a nomadic loner is pooling our resources at the expense of certain freedoms. If your response to "who's going to insure people with pre-existing conditions" is "why should insurers be forced to do it, let them die," you'd be arguing against our concept of a society. Personally, I think people who slap a socialism label on every single government service are a bit misguided or influenced by Republican fearmongering. It is true that a primarily capitalist society performs much better than a primarily socialist one, but having every service fall into the free market makes us lesser society.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 5:19:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 4:59:12 AM, Wylted wrote:
When the medical industry was more free market, doctors would often view it as a moral obligation to take on a certain percentage of charity cases. it was rare to see a doctor not do any charity work.

Charity is unreliable and not really what I was arguing for.

The ideal is to have free government-provided health care for everyone in the country. Canada has a good system as do many European countries. The United States is actually an exception in the developed world in that healthcare is expensive and unobtainable for low-income people. Obamacare is a step in the right direction.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 5:27:54 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 5:03:07 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 1/5/2016 9:01:36 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/5/2016 1:46:39 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
So, is this all that republicans can come up with? Someone post some serious reasons. I'm sure they exist even if I'll vehemently disagree with them.

Pretty much. They believe their stupid, abstract libertarian notions of "freedom" and "rights" outweigh concerns regarding human welfare.

Actually those things contribute more to human welfare than socialism, as can be seen on the economic freedom index that measures how socialist a system is. The more free an economy the better the economy, typically. While the more socialist an economy is, the worse it performs economically.

I'm not talking about people who prefer libertarian policies on the basis of pragmatics (although I do think it's misguided to believe that a completely free market healthcare system would be beneficial). My comment was referring to people like Vox_Veritas, who seem to oppose Obamacare simply because it violates their subjective moral constructs (e.g. absolute property rights). The fact is that we as a society value human welfare and don't hold property rights to be absolute, so that sort of reasoning is rather inane.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 5:29:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 5:19:24 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:

The ideal is to have free government-provided health care for everyone in the country. Canada has a good system as do many European countries. The United States is actually an exception in the developed world in that healthcare is expensive and unobtainable for low-income people. Obamacare is a step in the right direction.

Obamacare was definitely a step in the right direction, but I don't think a single-payer healthcare system is the right way to go.

Would you be interested in debating this, by any chance?
Call me King Pootie Tang.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 5:30:15 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 5:14:33 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 1/6/2016 4:54:52 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 1/5/2016 1:46:39 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
So, is this all that republicans can come up with? Someone post some serious reasons. I'm sure they exist even if I'll vehemently disagree with them.

I think that better healthcare services and affordability would be found in a truly free capitalistic approach to healthcare.

Hell if a free market system isn't viable in the current political climate then a single payer system would be better than this. I don't really see how anybody on the right or left could support that bill.

There's a bunch of hidden stuff in the bill that gets overlooked as well. For example it is what like 10,000 pages full of legalese, so even if you find the time to actually read it as a private citizen, you likely won't understand the legalese.

Do you agree with everything in the Obamacare bill?

Do you support free market for services like law enforcement and firefighting?

Absolutely. A privatized police force can be paid for similar to how HOA fees are paid. This would make them more accountable because they wouldn't be able to use wualified immunity and the same type of training and standards can be required. This would also solve the problem of needless raids, over focus on traffic laws and create better customer service in predominantly black communities. If a police force is found to be corrupt, you could simply fire and replace them.

I'm also okay with a nights watchman state that could do both those services, but they'd work fine without the government directly doing the job.

Not everything can fall smoothly into the free market paradigm. By having services like Law Enforcement (and I argue, Healthcare as well) on a pay-per-view basis, it creates a huge inequality in that only some people have access to them. Part of being a society and not a nomadic loner is pooling our resources at the expense of certain freedoms. If your response to "who's going to insure people with pre-existing conditions" is "why should insurers be forced to do it, let them die," you'd be arguing against our concept of a society. Personally, I think people who slap a socialism label on every single government service are a bit misguided or influenced by Republican fearmongering. It is true that a primarily capitalist society performs much better than a primarily socialist one, but having every service fall into the free market makes us lesser society.

I do think free market and ethical solutions work for a lot of things. In a perfect free market society these things would be cheap and affordable and no big deal, plus people are just naturally charitable. If you don't believe people are charitable you could always enact filial responsibility laws https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Which are not anti free market. Back in the old days before health insurance was widely available doctors would typically have a certain percentage of charity cases and work they'd do. No government intervention neccesary, and I'm confident that would occur in a completely free market society.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 5:32:28 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 5:19:24 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 1/6/2016 4:59:12 AM, Wylted wrote:
When the medical industry was more free market, doctors would often view it as a moral obligation to take on a certain percentage of charity cases. it was rare to see a doctor not do any charity work.

Charity is unreliable and not really what I was arguing for.

The ideal is to have free government-provided health care for everyone in the country. Canada has a good system as do many European countries. The United States is actually an exception in the developed world in that healthcare is expensive and unobtainable for low-income people. Obamacare is a step in the right direction.

I think it takes us further from the ideal society, even if it is better than the prior status quo. It may be an improvement, but I'd prefer the current problems be solved in a different way
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 7:19:55 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 5:29:58 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/6/2016 5:19:24 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:

The ideal is to have free government-provided health care for everyone in the country. Canada has a good system as do many European countries. The United States is actually an exception in the developed world in that healthcare is expensive and unobtainable for low-income people. Obamacare is a step in the right direction.

Obamacare was definitely a step in the right direction, but I don't think a single-payer healthcare system is the right way to go.

Would you be interested in debating this, by any chance?

Sounds interesting but it'll have to wait a while. Too busy at the moment to do a serious debate. I'd argue that the United States should adopt a Healthcare system similar to Canada's.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 6:45:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 12:35:41 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/4/2016 11:42:59 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's not just simple redistribution.

Unless you are a very sick, poor, female, you WILL be paying more, not even calculating costs from historical government incompetence.

Traditional welfare payments would have been far more helpful and cheaper redistribution method.

not to mention people losing jobs and get hours cut. a simple subsidized Medicaid system would be so much better, but remember folks, that those are state plans not federal. Feds want control otherwise they could have wasted far less of our money with medicaid expansions than what as already been wasted.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 6:49:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 1:16:20 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 1/4/2016 11:42:59 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Healthcare providers can absorb the cost. We're talking about large companies dealing in billions of dollars of sales. The people who can't absorb the cost are people with pre-existing conditions. For many of these, the price of healthcare is so high that they can't afford to take care of themselves. They can't get insurance because the insurance companies won't take them on without charging exorbitant premiums. When Healthcare becomes unaffordable to the extent that a good percentage of people are unable to visit a doctor, then something is very wrong with the country's healthcare system.

would be interesting to see if the number hospitals closing and going bankrupt has increased or is increasing because of the Unaffordable Health Care Act.
http://www.beckershospitalreview.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 10:49:49 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 6:45:57 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/5/2016 12:35:41 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/4/2016 11:42:59 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's not just simple redistribution.

Unless you are a very sick, poor, female, you WILL be paying more, not even calculating costs from historical government incompetence.

Traditional welfare payments would have been far more helpful and cheaper redistribution method.

not to mention people losing jobs and get hours cut. a simple subsidized Medicaid system would be so much better, but remember folks, that those are state plans not federal. Feds want control otherwise they could have wasted far less of our money with medicaid expansions than what as already been wasted.

Would you oppose the poor, the sick, and the women from simply getting a government check in the mail every month to cover health costs? Because that would have costed a fraction of Obamacare.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 10:52:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 5:19:24 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 1/6/2016 4:59:12 AM, Wylted wrote:
When the medical industry was more free market, doctors would often view it as a moral obligation to take on a certain percentage of charity cases. it was rare to see a doctor not do any charity work.

Charity is unreliable and not really what I was arguing for.

The ideal is to have free government-provided health care for everyone in the country. Canada has a good system as do many European countries. The United States is actually an exception in the developed world in that healthcare is expensive and unobtainable for low-income people. Obamacare is a step in the right direction.

The rich and the middle class don't need the government to provide them with anything. Charity should be only for the poor and disabled.