Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I am going to work off of a couple of assumptions, which, knowing how these debates go, will become the point of all the responses rather than dealing with the issue I'm asking about...

Most of those in support of Universal Healthcare, a public option, or a penalty for not purchasing health care, or any combination of these things are:

1. Liberal, Democrat, independent, left-wing, centrist, statists, socialists, or otherwise positioned away from the fiscally and socially conservative side of the spectrum.

2. Opposed to the state dictating whether or not gays can marry, women can abort fetuses, possibly even the ability to smoke marijuana...

If this is the case...

Why would you want to set up a system where the government infringes on American's rights to freedom to choose their own health care choices? I know that it's probably not seen as an infringement, but if you believe women should be able to abort a fetus, should they so desire, then why can a person not decide to go without healthcare insurance?

Also...

Why would you want to set up a system which, in most cases, involves restrictions on lifestyle in order to not be penalized for putting an extra strain on the healthcare system. People will not be able to live the way they wish, and companies that produce unhealthy products will also be penalized. Isn't that infringing on the rights of Americans? Isn't that a conservative policy?

I'm sure this will go off track, and I'm sure I misspoke somewhere and someone will pick it apart, but the main issue is...

Why is the group most concerned with social liberties, so behind a program that will restrict them...

ToTheLeft wrote:I am going to work off of a couple of assumptions, which, knowing how these debates go, will become the point of all the responses rather than dealing with the issue I'm asking about...

Most of those in support of Universal Healthcare, a public option, or a penalty for not purchasing health care, or any combination of these things are:

1. Liberal, Democrat, independent, left-wing, centrist, statists, socialists, or otherwise positioned away from the fiscally and socially conservative side of the spectrum.

2. Opposed to the state dictating whether or not gays can marry, women can abort fetuses, possibly even the ability to smoke marijuana...

Interesting assumption TTL, since I'm NONE of the things in #1, but believe in ALL the things in #2 except the smoking ganja part.

AZ, Are you in favor of the health care plan set forth by Obama?

I am almost everything in #2 as well, but nothing in #1, and I am very much opposed to this bill.

The problem with not allowing people to go uninsured, is the same rationale for requiring car insurance if you want to drive.

People who choose not to buy health insurance still get sick, still show up in the clinics and ERs and we all end up paying for them in multiple different ways. Hence, they should be made to help carry their share of the burden on the system that they will insist serves them when the time comes. It is different if someone has no means to purchase, but then they most likely are covered under Medicaid.

I mean, that is an issue, however, the implications of government run healthcare are more than just covering the costs of previously uninsured persons. If it was as simple as setting aside extra tax dollars to cover for emergency situations for uninsured Americans, that's one thing. To force the purchase of healthcare on all Americans, and to dictate the lifestyle of Americans, is a different story.

ToTheLeft wrote:AZ, Are you in favor of the health care plan set forth by Obama?

I am almost everything in #2 as well, but nothing in #1, and I am very much opposed to this bill.

Uh.......not a chance.

I want the government as far away from my healthcare as possible.

I knew I liked you. I agree 100%.

ngineer wrote:The problem with not allowing people to go uninsured, is the same rationale for requiring car insurance if you want to drive.

People who choose not to buy health insurance still get sick, still show up in the clinics and ERs and we all end up paying for them in multiple different ways. Hence, they should be made to help carry their share of the burden on the system that they will insist serves them when the time comes. It is different if someone has no means to purchase, but then they most likely are covered under Medicaid.

Funny you should use that as an example. So, if a person gets into more accidents, they pay FAR more for their car insurance.

Thus, if someone needs additional medical attention, either from having 16 kids or to cure their cancer, shouldn't they pay a lot more for their medical insurance?

Cluck U wrote:

ngineer wrote:The problem with not allowing people to go uninsured, is the same rationale for requiring car insurance if you want to drive.

People who choose not to buy health insurance still get sick, still show up in the clinics and ERs and we all end up paying for them in multiple different ways. Hence, they should be made to help carry their share of the burden on the system that they will insist serves them when the time comes. It is different if someone has no means to purchase, but then they most likely are covered under Medicaid.

Funny you should use that as an example. So, if a person gets into more accidents, they pay FAR more for their car insurance.

Thus, if someone needs additional medical attention, either from having 16 kids or to cure their cancer, shouldn't they pay a lot more for their medical insurance?

You choose to have 16 kids, you choose to drive a car, you don't always choose to have cancer. The insurance portion of healthcare should be to share the risk, not to make a profit.

And I don't like Obama's proposal.

ToTheLeft wrote:I am going to work off of a couple of assumptions, which, knowing how these debates go, will become the point of all the responses rather than dealing with the issue I'm asking about...

Most of those in support of Universal Healthcare, a public option, or a penalty for not purchasing health care, or any combination of these things are:

1. Liberal, Democrat, independent, left-wing, centrist, statists, socialists, or otherwise positioned away from the fiscally and socially conservative side of the spectrum.

2. Opposed to the state dictating whether or not gays can marry, women can abort fetuses, possibly even the ability to smoke marijuana...

If this is the case...

Why would you want to set up a system where the government infringes on American's rights to freedom to choose their own health care choices? I know that it's probably not seen as an infringement, but if you believe women should be able to abort a fetus, should they so desire, then why can a person not decide to go without healthcare insurance?

Also...

Why would you want to set up a system which, in most cases, involves restrictions on lifestyle in order to not be penalized for putting an extra strain on the healthcare system. People will not be able to live the way they wish, and companies that produce unhealthy products will also be penalized. Isn't that infringing on the rights of Americans? Isn't that a conservative policy?

I'm sure this will go off track, and I'm sure I misspoke somewhere and someone will pick it apart, but the main issue is...

Why is the group most concerned with social liberties, so behind a program that will restrict them...

and that's the problem with the current state of our political parties because you can say the same about Republicans/Neo-cons, etc when you flip the policy from economic to social

I concur.

By the way, does anyone know what is going on with Stupak and federal dollars being used for abortion?

Is Nancy Pelosi lying, or is Stupak misinformed?

I haven't heard anyone nail down any specifics other than Planned Parenthood would be considered a community health center, and thus be eligible for tons of federal funding.

Don't even know if that is true. Surprising how little information there is out there on this.

If you don't have any other coverage, then you are going to pay for the minimum Government provided health insurance whether you use it or not.

You pay for the roads, regardless if you drive a car or not. You pay to fund the FAA and NTSB regardless if you fly or not. So you are going to have some sort of health insurance coverage, regardless if you ever use it or not. That's what makes a society run smoothly. Nothing's free in this world. Of course if you don't want to pay to live in this society, you can

RobsPics wrote:If you don't have any other coverage, then you are going to pay for the minimum Government provided health insurance whether you use it or not.

You pay for the roads, regardless if you drive a car or not. You pay to fund the FAA and NTSB regardless if you fly or not. So you are going to have some sort of health insurance coverage, regardless if you ever use it or not. That's what makes a society run smoothly. Nothing's free in this world. Of course if you don't want to pay to live in this society, you can

Since about only 50% of the working population pays income taxes, your assumption is way off base.
Oh and that doesn't take into consideration the millions who don't pay income taxes, but get refunds through EITC's and other government sponsored 'money grabs'.

Great. I love threads where we discuss dichotomy in politics.

It's like hearing reruns of "Who's on First" every day for the rest of your life.

ngineer wrote:The problem with not allowing people to go uninsured, is the same rationale for requiring car insurance if you want to drive....

That is such pure bullshit! You and your ideas are an evil cancer on human kind. Nobody has the right to consciously burden their neighbor for their own choices, but NOBODY needs YOUR PERMISSION or the government's permission to live.

SeattleGriz wrote:...Is Nancy Pelosi lying, ....

I saw her lips move.

kalm wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Funny you should use that as an example. So, if a person gets into more accidents, they pay FAR more for their car insurance.

Thus, if someone needs additional medical attention, either from having 16 kids or to cure their cancer, shouldn't they pay a lot more for their medical insurance?

You choose to have 16 kids, you choose to drive a car, you don't always choose to have cancer. The insurance portion of healthcare should be to share the risk, not to make a profit.

And I don't like Obama's proposal.

As you well know, kalm, many cancer risk factors are behavioral choices.

native wrote:

kalm wrote:
You choose to have 16 kids, you choose to drive a car, you don't always choose to have cancer. The insurance portion of healthcare should be to share the risk, not to make a profit.

And I don't like Obama's proposal.

As you well know, kalm, many cancer risk factors are behavioral choices.

Mine wasn't.

Like I said you don't always chose to have cancer - and a whole bunch of cancer's strike many people who live healthy lifestyles.

Here's an article debunking a few of the myths surrounding the debate. And again, I'm not a fan of what's currently being considered:

One of the most bewildering aspects of the health care debate is the failure to learn key lessons from health systems abroad.
Conservative talk show hosts decry the alleged evils of "socialized medicine" in countries with universal health coverage. Yet there's nary a peep from Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck — let alone Congress — about countries such as Germany, France, Switzerland or Japan, where coverage is universal, affordable and top quality, and patients see private doctors with little or no waiting.

And, yes, their health costs are a fraction of our bloated numbers: The French spend 10 percent of GDP on health care, the Germans 11 percent, and they cover every citizen. We spend a whopping 17 percent and leave tens of millions of Americans uninsured.

http://www.montereyherald.com/opinion/c ... ck_check=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Baldy wrote:

RobsPics wrote:If you don't have any other coverage, then you are going to pay for the minimum Government provided health insurance whether you use it or not.

You pay for the roads, regardless if you drive a car or not. You pay to fund the FAA and NTSB regardless if you fly or not. So you are going to have some sort of health insurance coverage, regardless if you ever use it or not. That's what makes a society run smoothly. Nothing's free in this world. Of course if you don't want to pay to live in this society, you can

Since about only 50% of the working population pays income taxes, your assumption is way off base.
Oh and that doesn't take into consideration the millions who don't pay income taxes, but get refunds through EITC's and other government sponsored 'money grabs'.

Plus Baldy, he's wrong on the roads and FAA. You don't pay for the roads if you don't drive. The majority of funding for the roads comes from the state and fed gas taxes, plus tolls in many states.

You don't pay for the FAA regardless if you fly or not. Most of the FAAs funding comes from tax revenue collected from the airlines, general aviation, and ticket taxes. (Among domestic tickets you have a 7.5% hidden excise tax, plus $3.70 excise, up to $4.50 passenger facility charge, and $2.50 security fee for every takeoff and landing. In other words, if you have a 4 leg trip, that's 7.5% + up to $42.80. International is more).

ngineer wrote:The problem with not allowing people to go uninsured, is the same rationale for requiring car insurance if you want to drive.

People who choose not to buy health insurance still get sick, still show up in the clinics and ERs and we all end up paying for them in multiple different ways. Hence, they should be made to help carry their share of the burden on the system that they will insist serves them when the time comes. It is different if someone has no means to purchase, but then they most likely are covered under Medicaid.

Well, a mandate to buy health insurance some claim might not even be constitutional.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 62480.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As the CBO stated in 1994 during the Clinton socialized health care debate,
"A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an
unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required
people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the
United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in
combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on
individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase
a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government. Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society....."
(page 12):
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/48xx/doc4816/doc38.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Plus you have states seeking to ban it:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02 ... insurance/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Instead of making it mandatory to have insurance in order to be a lawful resident,
they could just make it mandatory to have insurance in order to be entitled to health care.

if you don't mind getting turned down for treatment (emergency or otherwise), then you don't have to buy insurance.

JayJ79 wrote:Instead of making it mandatory to have insurance in order to be a lawful resident,
they could just make it mandatory to have insurance in order to be entitled to health care.

if you don't mind getting turned down for treatment (emergency or otherwise), then you don't have to buy insurance.

Interesting, and logical.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

JayJ79 wrote:Instead of making it mandatory to have insurance in order to be a lawful resident,
they could just make it mandatory to have insurance in order to be entitled to health care.

if you don't mind getting turned down for treatment (emergency or otherwise), then you don't have to buy insurance.

Interesting, and logical.

...and fair.