Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

A reason to oppose Universal Health Care?

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 2:44:47 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
The United States is one of very few industrialized, democratic countries to not have Universal Health Care. Canada, Australia and most of Europe do.

In the United States, navigating through the Healthcare and insurance world is extremely difficult. For one, insurance is expensive and often the only way to get affordable insurance is if your employer offers it. If they don't or you are unemployed for a time, then it becomes impossible to get good insurance. Obama started addressing this problem a little with Obamacare although it's nowhere near UHC. Then the Republicans started bitching about it trying to get it repealed.

So, I'm just wondering, what the fvck is wrong with them. Are they masochists who want to die from an underlying condition or something? What happens to people on the street who can't get or afford insurance? What about people with pre-existing conditions who insurance companies won't insure or will charge a premium that they can't afford? Do republicans just want these people to die? I don't get it. How can anyone be retarded enough to not see that our system doesn't work and that we need to move towards UHC. But the one step that Obama took and republicans are crying from the rooftops trying to get it repealed.

I started off this thread wanting to ask Republicans why anyone would be against UHC. But I guess my real question is "who dropped you on your head when you were a baby?"
AlyceTheElectrician
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 3:17:12 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 2:44:47 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
The United States is one of very few industrialized, democratic countries to not have Universal Health Care. Canada, Australia and most of Europe do.

In the United States, navigating through the Healthcare and insurance world is extremely difficult. For one, insurance is expensive and often the only way to get affordable insurance is if your employer offers it. If they don't or you are unemployed for a time, then it becomes impossible to get good insurance. Obama started addressing this problem a little with Obamacare although it's nowhere near UHC. Then the Republicans started bitching about it trying to get it repealed.

So, I'm just wondering, what the fvck is wrong with them. Are they masochists who want to die from an underlying condition or something? What happens to people on the street who can't get or afford insurance? What about people with pre-existing conditions who insurance companies won't insure or will charge a premium that they can't afford? Do republicans just want these people to die? I don't get it. How can anyone be retarded enough to not see that our system doesn't work and that we need to move towards UHC. But the one step that Obama took and republicans are crying from the rooftops trying to get it repealed.

I started off this thread wanting to ask Republicans why anyone would be against UHC. But I guess my real question is "who dropped you on your head when you were a baby?"

If I understand ACA correctly, it's a system that mandates that everyone within USA is required to buy health insurance, with penalty fees is you refuse. It's a system that relies heavily on healthy people to pay in, in order to cover down on the unhealthy and the poor. The problem is there aren't enough healthy people paying in, and too many unhealthy people drawing out. Plus the penalty you pay at the end of the year COST LESS than the premiums you'd pay into insurance as a healthy person. Therefore, the ACA premiums are skyrocketing and Insurance companies are opting out and options are becoming scarce, it simply cannot be sustained in this condition and must be replaced with something more viable.
Be who you are, Say what you feel, Because those who mind don"t matter, And those who matter don't mind.

BANGTAN! Blood, Sweat, & Tears> Check it out yes! https://www.youtube.com...
Fernyx
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 3:32:32 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 2:44:47 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
The United States is one of very few industrialized, democratic countries to not have Universal Health Care. Canada, Australia and most of Europe do.

In the United States, navigating through the Healthcare and insurance world is extremely difficult. For one, insurance is expensive and often the only way to get affordable insurance is if your employer offers it. If they don't or you are unemployed for a time, then it becomes impossible to get good insurance. Obama started addressing this problem a little with Obamacare although it's nowhere near UHC. Then the Republicans started bitching about it trying to get it repealed.

So, I'm just wondering, what the fvck is wrong with them. Are they masochists who want to die from an underlying condition or something? What happens to people on the street who can't get or afford insurance? What about people with pre-existing conditions who insurance companies won't insure or will charge a premium that they can't afford? Do republicans just want these people to die? I don't get it. How can anyone be retarded enough to not see that our system doesn't work and that we need to move towards UHC. But the one step that Obama took and republicans are crying from the rooftops trying to get it repealed.

I started off this thread wanting to ask Republicans why anyone would be against UHC. But I guess my real question is "who dropped you on your head when you were a baby?"

If Obamacare is anywhere near socialized healthcare, it proves we should not have it. it is far too expensive to run, and prices skyrocket from year to year. If you were to make a more extreme version of it people making just above the poverty limit could be spending some 500-750 a month. Unfortunately America has a huge population and cannot afford it with the current state of spending.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 3:34:21 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 3:17:12 PM, AlyceTheElectrician wrote:
If I understand ACA correctly, it's a system that mandates that everyone within USA is required to buy health insurance, with penalty fees is you refuse. It's a system that relies heavily on healthy people to pay in, in order to cover down on the unhealthy and the poor. The problem is there aren't enough healthy people paying in, and too many unhealthy people drawing out. Plus the penalty you pay at the end of the year COST LESS than the premiums you'd pay into insurance as a healthy person. Therefore, the ACA premiums are skyrocketing and Insurance companies are opting out and options are becoming scarce, it simply cannot be sustained in this condition and must be replaced with something more viable.

Okay, that was a much better response than the type of posts people have been making on this forum lately hence the tone of my opening post.

The first issue I have is that healthcare costs a ton out of pocket. Somewhere in the ballpark of thousands of dollars for a simple test. That's not sustainable either. We need a system where people can just walk in and be given the healthcare they need. It's like if someone breaks into your house and you call the police, you don't need to pay a thousand dollar fee for their response or need to be covered by "law enforcement insurance." Everyone needs their health taken care of and it needs to come from taxes. Obviously that means richer people paying more but that's how it always is with taxes. Wealthy people are only wealthy because of society. They didn't build their wealth off the grid so they owe that much back to society.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 3:35:37 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 3:32:32 PM, Fernyx wrote:
If Obamacare is anywhere near socialized healthcare, it proves we should not have it. it is far too expensive to run, and prices skyrocket from year to year. If you were to make a more extreme version of it people making just above the poverty limit could be spending some 500-750 a month. Unfortunately America has a huge population and cannot afford it with the current state of spending.

Well, I'm arguing that taxes on the rich should be increased to accomodate for UHC.
Fernyx
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 3:44:42 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 3:35:37 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 11/20/2016 3:32:32 PM, Fernyx wrote:
If Obamacare is anywhere near socialized healthcare, it proves we should not have it. it is far too expensive to run, and prices skyrocket from year to year. If you were to make a more extreme version of it people making just above the poverty limit could be spending some 500-750 a month. Unfortunately America has a huge population and cannot afford it with the current state of spending.

Well, I'm arguing that taxes on the rich should be increased to accomodate for UHC.

Still would not help enough, because under a government that passes UHC, likelihood is that they attempt to pass other progressive fees such as help for college payment and college debt. All of this could not be afforded. I will go on the premise that they just raise taxes for universal health care, in which case, without tax reform, the rich simply do not pay taxes. Then if all of that happens you have to make sure they do not attempt to move elsewhere or gain residency elsewhere to avoid having to pay taxes. Even if everything goes right, you have to deal with the sheer population of America. In Canada they have troubles in keeping up with requests, extensive waiting lists for even some of the worse injuries. Now bring those delays, and attempt to account for roughly 260-280million more people. It would not work in the USA.
AlyceTheElectrician
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 4:10:24 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 3:34:21 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 11/20/2016 3:17:12 PM, AlyceTheElectrician wrote:
If I understand ACA correctly, it's a system that mandates that everyone within USA is required to buy health insurance, with penalty fees is you refuse. It's a system that relies heavily on healthy people to pay in, in order to cover down on the unhealthy and the poor. The problem is there aren't enough healthy people paying in, and too many unhealthy people drawing out. Plus the penalty you pay at the end of the year COST LESS than the premiums you'd pay into insurance as a healthy person. Therefore, the ACA premiums are skyrocketing and Insurance companies are opting out and options are becoming scarce, it simply cannot be sustained in this condition and must be replaced with something more viable.

Okay, that was a much better response than the type of posts people have been making on this forum lately hence the tone of my opening post.

The first issue I have is that healthcare costs a ton out of pocket. Somewhere in the ballpark of thousands of dollars for a simple test. That's not sustainable either. We need a system where people can just walk in and be given the healthcare they need. It's like if someone breaks into your house and you call the police, you don't need to pay a thousand dollar fee for their response or need to be covered by "law enforcement insurance." Everyone needs their health taken care of and it needs to come from taxes. Obviously that means richer people paying more but that's how it always is with taxes. Wealthy people are only wealthy because of society. They didn't build their wealth off the grid so they owe that much back to society.

The wealthy does give back to society by creating jobs, negotiating salaries, skills training, offering insurance plans and retirement plans in return for your labor whether it's skilled or unskilled. Raising taxes on the rich will only cause more disruption.

There are many factors that drive the cost of health care, the prevalence of chronic diseases which probably can't be helped unfortunately, but the over all healthiness rating of Americans can be helped. The cost and demand of healthcare technology, hospital and pharmaceutical pricing which is probably super hiked, administrative obligations, and over-treatment requested by physicians and patients.

I'm not a health care professional, but it seems that some of these things can be revisited for better solutions. Kicking out the lobbyist is probably a step in the right direction, especially when it comes to insurance and pharma companies. Creating a competitive market could drive down prices as well because, expensive does not equate to quality when it comes to health care services. There's probably a lot more that could be done besides taxing the rich.
Be who you are, Say what you feel, Because those who mind don"t matter, And those who matter don't mind.

BANGTAN! Blood, Sweat, & Tears> Check it out yes! https://www.youtube.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 4:48:57 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
Barack Obama explained it like this:

When we were designing the health care system many years ago, health *insurance* was viewed as a benefit of employment and not a right. It was offered as a part of an employee's compensation package, and the health insurance industry grew around that.

So, the task of the American policy maker is to understand how we can reconcile the existence of that industry, which employs thousands of people and comprises hundreds of billions of dollars, with our policy goals of ensuring access to health care.

This presents many challenges. The Affordable Care Act attempted to reconcile those challenges by spreading out risk across broad sectors of the population. This was made possible by the individual mandate, which imposed a tax penalty on those who did not buy health insurance.

My thoughts:

This was a conservative solution... it was also a terrible solution, both politically and from a policy standpoint. I am utterly indifferent to the health insurance industry and generally would like to see it go under.

I would rather see people automatically enrolled and to see, if private companies aren't going to be nationalized, those companies forced into an involuntary pool such that if they are going to write ANY kind of insurance in the United States, they must assume some health insurance risk from all Americans.

The only individual obligation, thus, would be to sign up. That, I think, is though even still too conservative a solution. I would MOST prefer a single payer system for reasons that anyone with even a middle school understanding of math can grasp.

However, the reasons why most people oppose such a system is the result of intergenerational Reagan-esque stupidity (unless you have an incentive to keep the health insurance industry viable). What that means is that people have the very stupid belief that only private companies can make anything work.

This belief is obviously grounded in no facts and is provably false in any context, but people make idiotic arguments like "Do you want your health care to be like the DMV? If so, then you must oppose a single payer system."

The bigger problem is that the industry is very complex and requires tremendous levels of sophistication to actually understand, and when some dullard analogizes a single payer system to, again, the DMV, voters are more easily persuaded by THAT vacuous appeal than by the more sophisticated argument from economic efficiency (which is beyond dispute, and obviate the need for a single payer system).

Republicans, who are bought and paid for by the insurance industry, make a big show, then, about "socialized medicine," and other stupidity as well to scare people into avoiding something they don't know. It's vile, but this is politics.

And here we are.

Once the--largely uneducated, and "more illiterate than any other generation" Baby Boomers die off--though, I expect a single payer system. But the generation that fvcked everything up has to die off before real progress can be made.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 4:52:39 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 3:35:37 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 11/20/2016 3:32:32 PM, Fernyx wrote:
If Obamacare is anywhere near socialized healthcare, it proves we should not have it. it is far too expensive to run, and prices skyrocket from year to year. If you were to make a more extreme version of it people making just above the poverty limit could be spending some 500-750 a month. Unfortunately America has a huge population and cannot afford it with the current state of spending.

Well, I'm arguing that taxes on the rich should be increased to accomodate for UHC.

That's not even necessary. I mean if it was then obviously I'd support it as well, but the AMOUNT of money we spend on health care is VASTLY MORE THAN other countries that have single payer systems and if we simply restructured HOW the money flows, we could lower aggregate health care costs while increasing access.

I know that that sounds too good to be true, but it's not. It's basically just "trimming the fat" that is the health insurance industry. Killing that industry is needed in order for a single payer system to exist, and by "killing" it I mean nationalizing it.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 8:29:03 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
A single-payer healthcare system is, perhaps by definition, a form of redistribution. Either the haves pay the medical bills of the have nots, or the healthy pay the medical bills of the unhealthy. Otherwise there's little benefit to this system, since people would otherwise simply pay their own bills.

First, it goes without saying that Americans live notoriously unhealthy lifestyles; probably 50% of our bad health is our own faults. Making people with healthy lifestyles pay for the consequences of other people's unhealthy lifestyles creates a self-evident moral hazard, and it may serve to encourage such behaviour.
Second, the sheer number of irrelevant medical procedures will skyrocket, because the recipient will get it off the taxpayer's dime. Think hypochondriacs visiting the doctor every month, liposuction, plastic surgery, breast enlargement operations, sex reassignment surgeries, etc. They would be reluctant to do this stuff before, because it'd be a serious waste of their own money, but if someone else is paying for it, they may go wild and get one operation after another.
Third, there's treatments which aren't irrelevant, but are unnecessary. If you get into a fight, it's probably a good idea to go see the doctor for your injuries, but it isn't necessary to do so, and a lot of people may choose not to because of cost issues. Again, if everyone gets treatments that they don't necessarily need, it'll constitute a drain on the system.
Fourth, it goes without saying that Christian taxpayers will be forced to pay for other people's abortions and contraceptives.

Ultimately a single-payer healthcare system could end up costing trillions. A tax hike large enough to pay for this would cause a large-scale migration of businesses and their tax dollars from the country and sink our economy.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 9:00:04 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 2:44:47 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
The United States is one of very few industrialized, democratic countries to not have Universal Health Care. Canada, Australia and most of Europe do.

In the United States, navigating through the Healthcare and insurance world is extremely difficult. For one, insurance is expensive and often the only way to get affordable insurance is if your employer offers it. If they don't or you are unemployed for a time, then it becomes impossible to get good insurance. Obama started addressing this problem a little with Obamacare although it's nowhere near UHC. Then the Republicans started bitching about it trying to get it repealed.

So, I'm just wondering, what the fvck is wrong with them. Are they masochists who want to die from an underlying condition or something? What happens to people on the street who can't get or afford insurance? What about people with pre-existing conditions who insurance companies won't insure or will charge a premium that they can't afford? Do republicans just want these people to die? I don't get it. How can anyone be retarded enough to not see that our system doesn't work and that we need to move towards UHC. But the one step that Obama took and republicans are crying from the rooftops trying to get it repealed.

I started off this thread wanting to ask Republicans why anyone would be against UHC. But I guess my real question is "who dropped you on your head when you were a baby?"

It's America. I think that's enough of an explanation.
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 11:36:57 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 8:29:03 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
A single-payer healthcare system is, perhaps by definition, a form of redistribution. Either the haves pay the medical bills of the have nots, or the healthy pay the medical bills of the unhealthy. Otherwise there's little benefit to this system, since people would otherwise simply pay their own bills.

First, it goes without saying that Americans live notoriously unhealthy lifestyles; probably 50% of our bad health is our own faults. Making people with healthy lifestyles pay for the consequences of other people's unhealthy lifestyles creates a self-evident moral hazard, and it may serve to encourage such behaviour.
Second, the sheer number of irrelevant medical procedures will skyrocket, because the recipient will get it off the taxpayer's dime. Think hypochondriacs visiting the doctor every month, liposuction, plastic surgery, breast enlargement operations, sex reassignment surgeries, etc. They would be reluctant to do this stuff before, because it'd be a serious waste of their own money, but if someone else is paying for it, they may go wild and get one operation after another.
Third, there's treatments which aren't irrelevant, but are unnecessary. If you get into a fight, it's probably a good idea to go see the doctor for your injuries, but it isn't necessary to do so, and a lot of people may choose not to because of cost issues. Again, if everyone gets treatments that they don't necessarily need, it'll constitute a drain on the system.
Fourth, it goes without saying that Christian taxpayers will be forced to pay for other people's abortions and contraceptives.

Ultimately a single-payer healthcare system could end up costing trillions. A tax hike large enough to pay for this would cause a large-scale migration of businesses and their tax dollars from the country and sink our economy.

I find the notion of "healthy people paying for unhealthy people" to be rather dumb. It's like suggesting that we shouldn't have police, fire, or criminal court services paid from taxes because that involves people who don't need them paying for those who do. What happens if someone assaults you in the street? Your response basically amounts to if you can't pay for the police to catch the guy, that's your problem and others shouldn't have to pay for you. If you can't pay the court to prosecute the guy, then others shouldn't have to pay for you. But when it comes to the medical expenses incurred, you are basically saying "too bad, if you can't pay, others shouldn't have to pay for you." With how much medical bills actually are, paying out of pocket is not really an option for the vast majority of Americans. I'm sorry but how retarded does someone have to be to argue that "healthy people" should not be paying the medical bills of "unhealthy people."

People have some control over their health but it doesn't account for accidents, chronic hereditary conditions and a whole host of problems. You can't ensure that you never have to go to a hospital simply by working out and eating vegetables. There are a lot of unknown variables here and to think otherwise is incredibly naive.

We can have UHC and still charge for optional medical procedures not covered under it. It doesn't have to be a free-for-all anything you want.
Kynikos
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 11:44:29 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
Republicans in congress/the senate are obstructionists. They'll prove government doesn't work by making sure it can't.

Some citizens sincerely think it doesn't work. But, for the most part, it's pure ideology.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 12:58:27 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 11:36:57 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 11/20/2016 8:29:03 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
A single-payer healthcare system is, perhaps by definition, a form of redistribution. Either the haves pay the medical bills of the have nots, or the healthy pay the medical bills of the unhealthy. Otherwise there's little benefit to this system, since people would otherwise simply pay their own bills.

First, it goes without saying that Americans live notoriously unhealthy lifestyles; probably 50% of our bad health is our own faults. Making people with healthy lifestyles pay for the consequences of other people's unhealthy lifestyles creates a self-evident moral hazard, and it may serve to encourage such behaviour.
Second, the sheer number of irrelevant medical procedures will skyrocket, because the recipient will get it off the taxpayer's dime. Think hypochondriacs visiting the doctor every month, liposuction, plastic surgery, breast enlargement operations, sex reassignment surgeries, etc. They would be reluctant to do this stuff before, because it'd be a serious waste of their own money, but if someone else is paying for it, they may go wild and get one operation after another.
Third, there's treatments which aren't irrelevant, but are unnecessary. If you get into a fight, it's probably a good idea to go see the doctor for your injuries, but it isn't necessary to do so, and a lot of people may choose not to because of cost issues. Again, if everyone gets treatments that they don't necessarily need, it'll constitute a drain on the system.
Fourth, it goes without saying that Christian taxpayers will be forced to pay for other people's abortions and contraceptives.

Ultimately a single-payer healthcare system could end up costing trillions. A tax hike large enough to pay for this would cause a large-scale migration of businesses and their tax dollars from the country and sink our economy.

I find the notion of "healthy people paying for unhealthy people" to be rather dumb. It's like suggesting that we shouldn't have police, fire, or criminal court services paid from taxes because that involves people who don't need them paying for those who do. What happens if someone assaults you in the street? Your response basically amounts to if you can't pay for the police to catch the guy, that's your problem and others shouldn't have to pay for you. If you can't pay the court to prosecute the guy, then others shouldn't have to pay for you. But when it comes to the medical expenses incurred, you are basically saying "too bad, if you can't pay, others shouldn't have to pay for you." With how much medical bills actually are, paying out of pocket is not really an option for the vast majority of Americans. I'm sorry but how retarded does someone have to be to argue that "healthy people" should not be paying the medical bills of "unhealthy people."

What I meant was that people who live healthy lifestyles have to pay the costs of people who do not live healthy lifestyles. There is nothing even remotely retarded about pointing this out.

People have some control over their health but it doesn't account for accidents, chronic hereditary conditions and a whole host of problems. You can't ensure that you never have to go to a hospital simply by working out and eating vegetables. There are a lot of unknown variables here and to think otherwise is incredibly naive.

A lot of Americans die of unpreventable causes, but a whole lot die because of their own choices or because of someone else's. For example, about 2.4 million Americans die every year. Of these, about 150,000 die of lung cancer. Of these, about 90% have lung cancer because they smoked (or perhaps because they were exposed to second-hand smoke). This amounts to about 135,000 people dying from Lung Cancer because they chose to smoke. About 600,000 Americans die of heart disease every year. While there are many natural causes, smoking, high cholesterol (usually caused by unhealthy lifestyle choices), physical inactivity, obesity, drug abuse, and drinking are major causes of heart disease. Around 7,000 people die of AIDS every year, and I think it's fair to say that most of these engaged in risky behaviours which caused it. Around 37,000 Americans commit suicide every year. Around 23% of car crashes involve one or both parties texting. According to one source (which I'm not entirely sure I should trust) eating while driving is a contributing factor in 80% of car crashes. I could go on.

We can have UHC and still charge for optional medical procedures not covered under it. It doesn't have to be a free-for-all anything you want.

They certainly would not count sex-reassignment surgery as optional, and the argument could be made that they would probably pay for people's liposuctions. And I'm sure that, with a doctor's letter of recommendation, the feds could perhaps be suckered into paying for something like breast enlargement.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 3:57:24 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 2:44:47 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
The United States is one of very few industrialized, democratic countries to not have Universal Health Care. Canada, Australia and most of Europe do.

In the United States, navigating through the Healthcare and insurance world is extremely difficult. For one, insurance is expensive and often the only way to get affordable insurance is if your employer offers it. If they don't or you are unemployed for a time, then it becomes impossible to get good insurance. Obama started addressing this problem a little with Obamacare although it's nowhere near UHC. Then the Republicans started bitching about it trying to get it repealed.

So, I'm just wondering, what the fvck is wrong with them. Are they masochists who want to die from an underlying condition or something? What happens to people on the street who can't get or afford insurance? What about people with pre-existing conditions who insurance companies won't insure or will charge a premium that they can't afford? Do republicans just want these people to die? I don't get it. How can anyone be retarded enough to not see that our system doesn't work and that we need to move towards UHC. But the one step that Obama took and republicans are crying from the rooftops trying to get it repealed.

I started off this thread wanting to ask Republicans why anyone would be against UHC. But I guess my real question is "who dropped you on your head when you were a baby?"

If you aren't able to pay a medical bill their are usually ways of bartering. Prices are so impractical that they shoot high, and take what they can get. No one is dying unless they are too dumb to go to the hospital. Obama care aint cheap either. Health care costs are the big issue in this country, not so much the insurance in my opinion. Its understandable not to want bigger government, and something I can respect even if my views are different. I'm really looking forward to better price transparency some day.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Robkwoods
Posts: 575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 2:07:38 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 2:44:47 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
The United States is one of very few industrialized, democratic countries to not have Universal Health Care. Canada, Australia and most of Europe do.

In the United States, navigating through the Healthcare and insurance world is extremely difficult. For one, insurance is expensive and often the only way to get affordable insurance is if your employer offers it. If they don't or you are unemployed for a time, then it becomes impossible to get good insurance. Obama started addressing this problem a little with Obamacare although it's nowhere near UHC. Then the Republicans started bitching about it trying to get it repealed.

So, I'm just wondering, what the fvck is wrong with them. Are they masochists who want to die from an underlying condition or something? What happens to people on the street who can't get or afford insurance? What about people with pre-existing conditions who insurance companies won't insure or will charge a premium that they can't afford? Do republicans just want these people to die? I don't get it. How can anyone be retarded enough to not see that our system doesn't work and that we need to move towards UHC. But the one step that Obama took and republicans are crying from the rooftops trying to get it repealed.

I started off this thread wanting to ask Republicans why anyone would be against UHC. But I guess my real question is "who dropped you on your head when you were a baby?"

Republicans aren't against universal health care they are against forcing people to pay for other people. I am not defending republicans, as they presented their own form of UHC many years ago.

It's simple, you can't force others to pay for the body that YOU are responsible for. The complaint against free market healthcare it doesn't work. The problem is that the US hasn't had free market healthcare since the 1920s.

The reason insurance became so expensive is because of Medicaid. Private companies had to compete with a Taxpayer funded program. Prices went up due to services being offered that were beyond the scope of what insurance is meant to cover.

If you want cheaper healthcare in the US stop federal funding the AMA, abolish the FDA, and Remove the licensing system for Doctors of Medicine. Despite the cost the US has best Healthcare in the world when you actually use meaningful metrics.

https://fee.org...
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 3:14:52 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
I got a solution, why doesn't America stop spending money on governing the world and the military and worry about spending money on health care and keeping it's citizens healthy instead of wasting money on policing Afghanistan, Syria, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Russia and the rest of the world.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 4:58:57 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 8:29:03 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
A single-payer healthcare system is, perhaps by definition, a form of redistribution. Either the haves pay the medical bills of the have nots, or the healthy pay the medical bills of the unhealthy. Otherwise there's little benefit to this system, since people would otherwise simply pay their own bills.

That is "insurance" in a nut shell. My car insurance payment doesn't do me squat if I never get in a wreck.

First, it goes without saying that Americans live notoriously unhealthy lifestyles; probably 50% of our bad health is our own faults. Making people with healthy lifestyles pay for the consequences of other people's unhealthy lifestyles creates a self-evident moral hazard, and it may serve to encourage such behaviour.

Sort of like how car insurance makes people worse drivers? I don't think your suggestion follows.

Second, the sheer number of irrelevant medical procedures will skyrocket, because the recipient will get it off the taxpayer's dime. Think hypochondriacs visiting the doctor every month, liposuction, plastic surgery, breast enlargement operations, sex reassignment surgeries, etc. They would be reluctant to do this stuff before, because it'd be a serious waste of their own money, but if someone else is paying for it, they may go wild and get one operation after another.

Elective surgeries have never been paid for without serious scrutiny from a provider. Hypochondriacs would still be paying a percent out of pocket, so again, I am not confindent this suggestion bolsters your point, either.

Third, there's treatments which aren't irrelevant, but are unnecessary. If you get into a fight, it's probably a good idea to go see the doctor for your injuries, but it isn't necessary to do so, and a lot of people may choose not to because of cost issues. Again, if everyone gets treatments that they don't necessarily need, it'll constitute a drain on the system.

Its found not necessary or not critical after going to a doc, not self diagnosing. I had what I thought was a cold my wife had, we described similar symptoms. I went to the doc and found out it was pericarditis. It was just random coincidence that the symptoms matched hers.

Fourth, it goes without saying that Christian taxpayers will be forced to pay for other people's abortions and contraceptives.

... and?

Ultimately a single-payer healthcare system could end up costing trillions. A tax hike large enough to pay for this would cause a large-scale migration of businesses and their tax dollars from the country and sink our economy.

So then more people die. Interesting priority, I guess.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 5:01:44 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
Comparisons to the DMV aren't unjustified, as we saw with the ongoing enrollment hiccups and website failure. However:

The real problem is that America just isn't used to the socialist mantra of "one size fits all."

Americans are used to managing their own risks, not have it managed for them.

Americans are used to having market choices, not mandates.

We can have pre-existing coverage and care for the poor without UHC. Yes, it can be done.

Implementing UHC requires a reform of American culture.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 7:35:57 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 5:01:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Comparisons to the DMV aren't unjustified, as we saw with the ongoing enrollment hiccups and website failure. However:

The real problem is that America just isn't used to the socialist mantra of "one size fits all."

Minimum standard. Its not one size fits all, were that the case, there would be no individual plans, there would be no gold bronze silver etc. The AHCA establishes minimum standards.

Americans are used to managing their own risks, not have it managed for them.

The number one reason, accounting for appx 46% of bankruptcies is medical issues. No, Americans are NOT used to "managing" this.

Americans are used to having market choices, not mandates.

Heh. Most vigilant Americans see what mandates are required when they go looking.

We can have pre-existing coverage and care for the poor without UHC. Yes, it can be done.

Sure.

Implementing UHC requires a reform of American culture.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 6:44:23 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 5:01:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Implementing UHC requires a reform of American culture.

Personally, I think this is one of the most convincing arguments against UHC.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 8:21:58 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
I love when people who have no clue as to the history, design, evolution, utilization trends, CFR regulations (I can list about 30 others) start weighing in on how things are, why they are, and how to fix.

Quite comical.