Why be against universal healthcare?

[Copernicus]

This attitude has caused many a country to be become insolvent. This "attitude" is going to bankrupt America.

Right now, over 60% of personal bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, and inflation in the health care industry continues unabated while the rest of the economy has very low inflation. We are trying to fix something that is literally driving us bankrupt, only you fear that the solution will drive us bankrupt. :areyoucra

When Obamacare is implemented, there will be a majority of folks who will be very unhappy with this new system that by the way has nothing to do with successful programs that provide people good care at affordable expense.

Not one country has a mandate to purchase something from a private held company except us. This is going to be a cluster truck and the most needy will still not be provided for.

We've heard this kind of exaggeration and fear-mongering before, and it is not based on reality. I expect that there will be a lot of confusion and that there will be calls to fix the system. It is not well-designed, but that is largely because conservatives like yourself have managed to block anything that looked remotely like a single-payer system, which you yourself admit would have been better than Obamacare.

My Grandfather was born in 1886 and lived till 1971. He never saw a doctor in his whole life. His daughter lived to be 99.

I may die tomorrow, but perhaps not. Oh by the way, I have battled cancer my whole adult life and have not had health insurance. I have paid over 560,000 in doctor bills.

No one helped me with a penny of that. Excuse me if I don't cry a river that your parents have to pay 100 dollars for you to see a specialist. Boo friggin Hoo.

If everyone had your grit, intelligence, opportunity, and genetic background, then maybe we would not need a national health care system. I'm very happy for you. I've enjoyed relatively good health myself, although I've needed and appreciated the insurance that I had in the past. I need it even more, now that I'm retired. This isn't about our individual circumstances. It is about what a sound national policy ought to be for matters of health care. Right now, we have government-sponsored insurance and welfare programs for many groups. Why not extend them to everyone?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Let's ask ourselves a question: what are rights, and where do they come from? Our rights are simply an arbitrary set of things set up by arbitrary people for arbitrary reasons. They are not universal nor absolute. In other words, people define what our rights are. In this case, we're supposed to be a democracy, meaning that we ourselves define what our rights are.

We are a Republic not a Democracy.

With that being said, I'll go back to what I've said at least two or three times in this thread: universal health care is not as much a political issue as it is an ethical one. That, and people's well-being should not ever be placed in the hands of people who are only in it for the money. So, is health care, or rather, health, a right? It should be, and ethically so. And we have the power to make it so.

So is someone going to give me my 560,000 back? After I spend my whole life without health insurance, your generation wants a free ride?

Now, what if good health isn't a right? Then I want my super-extra-jumbo-large sizes back at fast food restaurants. I don't want people telling me what I can and can't put in my body. I don't want people telling me what is and isn't dangerous, and what risks I should and shouldn't be able to take. That, and why stop with people who can't afford health care? What about the older generation? They don't serve any purpose, so let's just do away with them as well. And why squabble over abortion? Most people who get abortions are those who can't take care of a kid anyway, so let them get an abortion, and kill two birds with one stone.

The Buddha taught that a person needs four basic necessities to live: food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. These are things that, to my mind, are basic human rights and needs, and if someone can't afford one or more of these most basic needs, there needs to be somewhere they can go to have these needs met. The best way to do this is by the government. To deny a person one of these most basic needs, is to act in a most barbarous and unspiritual manner.

If you have a life threating condition, the hospital HAS

 

[dawny0826]

So, do you think that emergency rooms should turn away the man with a heart attack who cannot pay for their services?

Of course not. What I'm saying is that it's perfectly acceptable for the hospital to pursue payment after services are rendered. It's a SERVICE.

Knowing you, I highly doubt that you do. But how does this mesh with your claim that it is not a right? If it is not a right, if people shouldn't expect access to health care, then what would be wrong about turning away this man?

We aren't entitled to anything that has a price tag associated with it.

 

[Alceste]

Lets say a family plan for health insurance costs 1,200 a month and people start living to be a hundred years old. That is 1.4 million dollars that someone in the family is going to have to pay or the government is going to pay.

Many people don't make 1/2 a million income in their life time.

Health care is a luxuary not an entitled right.

We're not paying insurance premiums. We're paying for health care services. We are our own insurers, pooling our resources to make sure everyone is taken care of, and that all of our contributions are used to provide services for sick people rather than profits for investors. All that money you are paying for health insurance premiums is extra. Waste. Leakage. Excess. Inefficiency. How ever you want to describe it, you can do away with it entirely and suffer no reduction in front line services.

 

[dawny0826]

We're not paying insurance premiums. We're paying for health care services. We are our own insurers, pooling our resources to make sure everyone is taken care of, and that all of our contributions are used to provide services for sick people rather than profits for investors. All that money you are paying for health insurance premiums is extra. Waste. Leakage. Excess. Inefficiency. How ever you want to describe it, you can do away with it entirely and suffer no reduction in front line services.

You do realize that this isn't the way that things are going to work in America under Obamacare? Our health care reality has already been established and it does not mirror Canada's system.

 

[Alceste]

Still, bottom line, someone has to pay for this care. How much of your income are you willing to have taken away from you to treat...umm...heroin addicts? Alcoholics? Chronic hypochondriacs? Where would it stop?

Canadians are overwhelmingly in favour of our system, and nobody complains about paying for it when tax time rolls around. In part, that's because we can look south of the border and see how much more you are paying to line the pockets of for-profit insurance companies. I don't know about you guys, but Canadian families don't have $1000 a month to hand over to private, for-profit insurance companies for no reason.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

We are a Republic not a Democracy. So is someone going to give me my 560,000 back? After I spend my whole life without health insurance, your generation wants a free ride?

If you have a life threating condition, the hospital HAS

I find it telling that, while I've pointed out the ethical side of this debate on this thread, those opposed to universal health care still have not addressed this issue. Interesting.

It's great that you could afford to pay your medical expenses yourself. But what about those who can't? What about the college student working some fast food gig to put himself through school? What about the single mother working two jobs just to pay the bills? These aren't people wanting a free ride, these are people needing a little help. It's getting annoying to keep pointing out to conservatives that no one thinks that people deserve a "free ride". I certainly don't, and I don't think safety net programs should be given to the drug addled mom of six just because she doesn't want to work. We're not talking about free rides, we're talking about helping people who need it. I know it's hard for conservatives to understand, but yes, there is a difference.

Again, with this being said, I could care less about the political side of it. I'm more concerned with the ethical-spiritual side of it. The ethic of reciprocity comes into play here. Every religion has it, yet the supposedly most spiritual in the US, the conservatives, sure don't see a need to follow it. This is one of the primary reasons why I consider myself a liberal after spending over 20 years as a conservative: they're just the more spiritual of the bunch.

So, is anyone who disagrees with universal health care going to take up my challenge and discuss the ethical and spiritual side of the debate?

 

[Alceste]

This problem is addressed in a public system exactly the way it is addressed by private health insurance plans. You have a certain amount of coverage. If you rack up medical bills which exceed your coverage, you have to pay the difference out of pocket. The difference is that public health insurance can be far more efficient, because (1) it is not-for-profit, (2) it can pool much larger resources together, (3) it is not tied to employers.

Actually, no, there is no maximum. We never pay out of pocket, except for things that are not covered, like pharmaceuticals, ambulance rides, dentists and glasses. Everybody is covered for everything else, from birth to death, except for medically unnecessary tests and procedures (boob jobs, etc).

Your family doctor (who bills the government for services rendered but is not employed by them) is the filter who determines what is medically necessary, and you choose your own family doctor.

And we pay half what you pay.

 

[Alceste]

It's not a right. I'm with you.

No one is entitled to professional services. There is a difference between being in need of and deserving of and being ENTITLED to.

Every citizen of every first world nation except yours is in fact entitled to health care services, free at the point of service.

So you'll want to amend that to "Americans aren't entitled to professional health services", rather than "no one", because you folks are completely unique in that respect.

 

[Falvlun]

You do realize that this isn't the way that things are going to work in America under Obamacare? Our health care reality has already been established and it does not mirror Canada's system.

Obamacare is not single payer. Single payer is generally what liberals wanted to implement, but were too chicken to pursue it. Though, in fairness, it would have been DOA because of the conservatives.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So is someone going to give me my 560,000 back? After I spend my whole life without health insurance, your generation wants a free ride?

So because a generation after yours makes progress, you are jealous and think it shouldn't happen? And who said anything about it being a "free ride?" I see many people mentioning they don't mind paying taxes for such a system though, which means they are acknowledging the fact it isn't free.

 

[Alceste]

My Grandfather was born in 1886 and lived till 1971. He never saw a doctor in his whole life. His daughter lived to be 99.

I may die tomorrow, but perhaps not. Oh by the way, I have battled cancer my whole adult life and have not had health insurance. I have paid over 560,000 in doctor bills.

No one helped me with a penny of that. Excuse me if I don't cry a river that your parents have to pay 100 dollars for you to see a specialist. Boo friggin Hoo.

Wouldn't you have rather spent that money on something else? In Canada, you could have kept it.

 

[Alceste]

You do realize that this isn't the way that things are going to work in America under Obamacare? Our health care reality has already been established and it does not mirror Canada's system.

This thread is about universal health care, not Obama care.

 

[dawny0826]

It's great that you could afford to pay your medical expenses yourself. But what about those who can't? What about the college student working some fast food gig to put himself through school? What about the single mother working two jobs just to pay the bills? These aren't people wanting a free ride, these are people needing a little help. It's getting annoying to keep pointing out to conservatives that no one thinks that people deserve a "free ride". I certainly don't, and I don't think safety net programs should be given to the drug addled mom of six just because she doesn't want to work. We're not talking about free rides, we're talking about helping people who need it. I know it's hard for conservatives to understand, but yes, there is a difference.

We all should be doing our part to contribute to the welfare of our society and to invest our time, if we don't have the money, to assist those within our own communities who have need. And if we were doing this, as a nation, we wouldn't have to rely on our government for support. We could self sustain within our own neighborhoods.

We do this through our taxes and that's the involuntary piece. We should also extend ourselves voluntarily through causes that make a difference.

Again, with this being said, I could care less about the political side of it. I'm more concerned with the ethical-spiritual side of it. The ethic of reciprocity comes into play here. Every religion has it, yet the supposedly most spiritual in the US, the conservatives, sure don't see a need to follow it. This is one of the primary reasons why I consider myself a liberal after spending over 20 years as a conservative: they're just the more spiritual of the bunch.

This is a political argument, though. You can't debate solely from an ethical/spiritual platform.

So, is anyone who disagrees with universal health care going to take up my challenge and discuss the ethical and spiritual side of the debate?

There are kind hearted professionals providing free health care now, within communities across America. What's stopping you from making a difference in your community?

 

[Alceste]

So because a generation after yours makes progress, you are jealous and think it shouldn't happen? And who said anything about it being a "free ride?" I see many people mentioning they don't mind paying taxes for such a system though, which means they are acknowledging the fact it isn't free.

I know! He's like a slave fighting emancipation. "what, after I've been in chains all my life, suddenly my kids and grandkids want to be free??? Not if I can help it!"

 

[dawny0826]

This thread is about universal health care, not Obama care.

As if both haven't been discussed in detail on this thread. Obamacare is the American future in terms of health care. Can't sell us on something we don't have the opportunity to buy.

 

[Alceste]

We all should be doing our part to contribute to the welfare of our society and to invest our time, if we don't have the money, to assist those within our own communities who have need. And if we were doing this, as a nation, we wouldn't have to rely on our government for support. We could self sustain within our own neighborhoods.

We do this through our taxes and that's the involuntary piece. We should also extend ourselves voluntarily through causes that make a difference.



This is a political argument, though. You can't debate solely from an ethical/spiritual platform.



There are kind hearted professionals providing free health care now, within communities across America. What's stopping you from making a difference in your community?

Why shouldn't kind hearted health professionals be paid the same as greedy ones? They provide the same services.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

We all should be doing our part to contribute to the welfare of our society and to invest our time, if we don't have the money, to assist those within our own communities who have need. And if we were doing this, as a nation, we wouldn't have to rely on our government for support. We could self sustain within our own neighborhoods.

We do this through our taxes and that's the involuntary piece. We should also extend ourselves voluntarily through causes that make a difference.

This is a good response, and one I can agree with. However, this is an ideal, and unfortunately, things are not ideal here. So there are some things that need to be amended.

This is a political argument, though. You can't debate solely from an ethical/spiritual platform.

I get that it's a political issue. It has to be, unfortunately. But one thing I've failed to see in the debate, both online and with the politicians, is a failure to address the ethical and spiritual side of it. There's more at play than just money and "what's mine is mine". I think if people actually took a good hard look at the ethical/spiritual side of it, the political aspect would be much easier to sort out.

There are kind hearted professionals providing free health care now, within communities across America. What's stopping you from making a difference in your community?

Since I'm limited on medical knowledge/time/resources/etc, taxes are the best way for me to help.

 

[dawny0826]

Why shouldn't kind hearted health professionals be paid the same as greedy ones?

Why shouldn't Americans be able to cultivate non-profit networks, if they solve problems within their communities? Whey can't a doctor volunteer his time without being paid at all?

 

[Alceste]

As if both haven't been discussed in detail on this thread. Obamacare is the American future in terms of health care. Can't sell us on something we don't have the opportunity to buy.

You do have the opportunity to achieve universal health care. Obamacare is irrelevant to this topic. It's a discussion of why a minority of Americans still oppose universal health care.