UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE., just because everyone else does it... |
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE., just because everyone else does it... |
Aug 23 2009, 07:14 PM
Post
#1
|
|
in the reverb chamber. Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,022 Joined: Nov 2005 Member No: 300,308 |
so, why the f*ck don't we have universal healthcare?
|
|
|
Sep 1 2009, 04:47 PM
Post
#2
|
|
in the reverb chamber. Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,022 Joined: Nov 2005 Member No: 300,308 |
p.s. the issue is finding a healthcare system that is best for everyone, and best for the country. that's the primary concern. not whether or not we have to raise taxes. personally, i have enough dedication to this country to want to see my taxes raised for a good cause. we are a society, a unit, a civilization that is designed to function together towards progress. it's good that we have a public school system, so that everyone has the opportunity to be educated. it's good that we have roads so that transportation can be made possible. it's good that we have a military so that our country can be defended. IF YOU PUT THE INDIVIDUAL BEFORE THE SOCIETY YOU LOSE ALL OF THIS. so the question is this: is the moral precedent so great that you would not collect taxes in order to give everyone a free public education? would you not collect taxes to build roads? would you not collect taxes to defend your homeland? would you not collect taxes to make your country healthier & happier?
|
|
|
Sep 2 2009, 08:20 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Official Member Posts: 1,574 Joined: Aug 2007 Member No: 555,438 |
p.s. the issue is finding a healthcare system that is best for everyone, and best for the country. that's the primary concern. not whether or not we have to raise taxes. personally, i have enough dedication to this country to want to see my taxes raised for a good cause. we are a society, a unit, a civilization that is designed to function together towards progress. it's good that we have a public school system, so that everyone has the opportunity to be educated. it's good that we have roads so that transportation can be made possible. it's good that we have a military so that our country can be defended. IF YOU PUT THE INDIVIDUAL BEFORE THE SOCIETY YOU LOSE ALL OF THIS. so the question is this: is the moral precedent so great that you would not collect taxes in order to give everyone a free public education? would you not collect taxes to build roads? would you not collect taxes to defend your homeland? would you not collect taxes to make your country healthier & happier? Our public school system is FUBAR. I think we spend a bit too much considering the children who attend public school in other countries have better grades than we do. We could lower taxes here and still have the same "quality education". Roads are necessary. Don't mind paying for it. Military is necessary. Don't mind paying for it. Anyway, you can also argue that putting health care in the government's hands is bad for society. The addition of a public option will destroy competition in the health system via the public options unfair competitive advantages. Investors will not invest their money in things that don't lead to a profit. If competition is removed then the strive for better health practices and technology through research will be slowed down due to a lack of private investors. After all, it is through health insurance that these industries get paid. Yes, we pay more for our health care than other countries, but our health practices is also far more advanced than in other countries. People travel from all over the world to receive medical treatment in America for that very reason. In the future, we will have a healthier America if we continue to support a private health care system. |
|
|
Sep 2 2009, 06:38 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 820 Joined: Jun 2009 Member No: 733,315 |
In the future, we will have a healthier America if we continue to support a private health care system. You mean for the people that can afford it, but other than that, you're right, healthcare will go to shits, or we could both be wrong and every private health insurer decides to go all superman and trys to out perform one another. |
|
|
Sep 3 2009, 07:29 AM
Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member Group: Official Member Posts: 1,574 Joined: Aug 2007 Member No: 555,438 |
You mean for the people that can afford it, but other than that, you're right, healthcare will go to shits, or we could both be wrong and every private health insurer decides to go all superman and trys to out perform one another. Most people in America can afford it. Health insurers do try to out preform one another. That's the whole purpose of the competitive market. Businesses switch health insurers all the time to lower their rate. Also, I want to make it very clear that I don't think our health care system is perfect. I definitely be leave that there are certain areas where the consumer is being taken advantage of. Mal-practice insurance for doctors is ridiculously high. People are robbed by price of prescriptions. These are major contributing factors to the price of insurance. |
|
|
Sep 3 2009, 09:26 AM
Post
#6
|
|
Senior Member Group: Administrator Posts: 2,648 Joined: Apr 2008 Member No: 639,265 |
Most people in America can afford it. Insurance doesn't do any good if you can't afford the actual health procedures. Just because you're insured, doesn't mean that your health insurance company will actually pay anything. There're a lot of cases of people being suddenly dropped from insurance because they file for cancer treatment or another expensive procedure. There are also a lot of cases in which people are denied a claim and have to pay for a procedure on their own, even though they have insurance. And insurance companies don't usually cover potentially life-saving operations that they determine to be "experimental". In short, affording health insurance doesn't mean anything if the insurance company doesn't pony up the dough when you actually need it. Hm. Did I just suggest that "health rationing" already takes place in America? |
|
|
Sep 3 2009, 01:11 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Senior Member Group: Official Member Posts: 1,574 Joined: Aug 2007 Member No: 555,438 |
In short, affording health insurance doesn't mean anything if the insurance company doesn't pony up the dough when you actually need it. I don't understand why you might think government won't operate in a similar fashion? Currently the Gov't offers Medicare (which is going bankrupt). Also, many doctor's don't even accept medicare gov't doesn't pay as much and the paperwork is a bitch. In many cases, it just doesn't cover their operating costs. Again, I don't think our system is perfect. I might believe it's among the best, but that doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement. To expect the gov't to do a better job is ridiculous. The gov't is so unreliable it's pathetic. There are people out there that clearly need help, but giving control over to the gov't is not the way to solve this. I've seen a few different ideas thrown around. A few things that would reduce the bill:
There are plenty of ways to reduce the cost of Health Insurance without handing it over to the gov't. |
|
|
Sep 3 2009, 01:24 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Senior Member Group: Administrator Posts: 2,648 Joined: Apr 2008 Member No: 639,265 |
I don't understand what makes you think government won't operate in a similar fashion? Perhaps it will -- although I trust the government more than an insurance company. An insurance company can maximize profits when it takes in payments but doesn't pay for coverage; since a company's goal is to maximize profits, an insurance has a vested interest in denying coverage whenever possible. To expect the gov't to do a better job is ridiculous. The gov't is so unreliable it's pathetic. And insurance companies are any more reliable? You never know when an insurance company is going to deny a claim for arbitrary reasons. |
|
|
Sep 3 2009, 01:48 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Senior Member Group: Official Member Posts: 1,574 Joined: Aug 2007 Member No: 555,438 |
Perhaps it will -- although I trust the government more than an insurance company. An insurance company can maximize profits when it takes in payments but doesn't pay for coverage; since a company's goal is to maximize profits, an insurance has a vested interest in denying coverage whenever possible. The gov't doesn't have an endless supply of income either. The gov't will have the right to deny claims as well. QUOTE And insurance companies are any more reliable? You never know when an insurance company is going to deny a claim for arbitrary reasons. And you never know when the govt's going to do it either. I'm not saying change shouldn't happen. There definitely needs to be change, however handing control over to the gov't is NOT the solution. Handing health care over to the gov't is a temporary fix that will result in big financial problems. |
|
|