Login/Sign Up




US Health Care Reform passes -- thoughts?
Fashion

thales
Mar 22, 2010
7 votes
9 debaters
10
6
2
2
2
1


+ Add Argument

3
Yay!


gaudior
Mar 23, 2010
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: larryt700 Show

No annual and lifetime limits = regulation. Children can stay on parent's insurance until they are 26 = regulation tax breaks for small employers = regulation donut hole being filled = regulation covering preventative care without copay = regulation no more recission = regulation I can keep listing things if you would like. Please defend your statement that this is socialist. Also, please defend your statment that high paid specialists would go elsewhere. Where else would they go?

 
halachuinic
Mar 23, 2010
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: renelle Show

"I'm actually sort of mixed about this. The majority of changes taking place are okay with me. It's fine with me if remove caps on how much an insurance company can cover, help those with pre existing conditions etc. but i don't understand the need for the fine imposed. Now, it will be required for us to buy our own health care or we get fined."

The reason people are forced to buy insurance is because there is an information gap that helps increase premiums.

It's a problem very common in the insurance context, but it's more perverse in health insurance. The problem with insurance is this: Insurance companies have limited information about its customers (they have statistics, but statistics are generalizations). In contrast, customers have full information about themselves. What tends to happen, then, is that people who are risk-averse (for example, someone who does exercises diligently, who eats healthy, who lacks all familial health problems) will tend not to buy insurance. In contrast, those people who are risk lovers (drunk drivers, people with horrible health histories in their family) will buy insurance.

Now statistics helps, but there's a secondary problem that fuels the situation. Mainly, we live in a rather civilized society. And even when one knows they are healthy, accidents happen. So, if a young 20-year-old lad in great shape gets hit by a car (through no fault of his own) while he walks in the sidewalk or falls off a ladder or gets struck with cancer, he might not have insurance because he knows that he's healthy. But he's also now injured or sick. And most Americans would refuse to let him die when the technology is available. All of a sudden, the public swallows the cost because the young lad never had insurance.

By forcing everyone to get insurance or pay an income-tax fine, you enlarge the pool and control costs.

 
serejka
Mar 22, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
It's not so bad - millions of poor people will be able to have decent healthcare and won't die on the streets. On the downside - more taxes for the rich, the horror!

 
gaudior
Mar 23, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
I believe this is a significant step foward for the health of Americans. It establishes many fundamental rights in the Health Care sector and inserts much needed regulation. However, we still have a long way to go on this reform.

 
dw3llz
Mar 24, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: larryt700 Show

I, too, would love for you to back up your statements with some proof. Asking questions, such as "Do you need another lesson in that?" provides no fact or evidence in your favor. Saying this is a bill out of socialism is ok, if you back that up bud. I see this as socialism (only because we are truly spreading the wealth and medical coverage to the community as a whole) but for the best of the world. Allowing everyone to be covered is a great idea, but it will not result in us becoming communists.

 
gaudior
Mar 24, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: larryt700 Show

If you are going to call me retarded, at least spell it right. I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E. It kind of detracts from the power of your statement. You are correct that the rich have more wealth taxed, but guess what they have more of it to begin with. Do you know when American's were at their happiest, the 1950's when the top marginal tax rate was in the nineties of percent. Now it's in the thirties. Please explain how this bill makes an incentive for people to work. I think the fact that SSD and Welfare pay more than minimum wage is the greater incentive. Most companies (85%) already provide health insurance. of the fifteen percent that don't 85% of them have less than 50 employees meaning that nothing is going to change for them. The remaining ones are under no obligation to "give" their empoyees health insurance, they just have to offer them plans. Finally, your stimulus bill [argument] is the exact opposite of what (you say) will happen under this [health care] bill. The stimulus package was robbing from the many to give to the few, where your argument is that this bill will rob from the few to give to the many. Can't talk out of both sides of your mouth.

 
gaudior
Mar 24, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: larryt700 Show

I did not say "income tax" in my rebuttal. I simply said taxes and I meant it to be all encompassing. Before income tax, we had tarriffs which started in 1790. You are not feeding me information I don't already know. My wording was carefully crafted.

 
halachuinic
Jan 08, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: elliotd123 Show

No. You misunderstand. Gravely.
Those people who are risk lovers already get healthcare. They know that they're more likely to need medical care, so instead of waiting around to pay out of pocket when they drive into a tree, they buy health insurance. People who are risk averse have to pay for healthcare. So, when the young man get hit by a car, his health insurance (which he has been paying monthly premiums for years) will cover it. If he doesn't have health insurance, then we cover it (alternatively, you can let him die).

 
+ Add Argument

3
This is the beginning of the end....


frankiej4189
Mar 22, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Sincerely upset.

 
renelle
Mar 22, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I'm actually sort of mixed about this. The majority of changes taking place are okay with me. It's fine with me if remove caps on how much an insurance company can cover, help those with pre existing conditions etc. but i don't understand the need for the fine imposed. Now, it will be required for us to buy our own health care or we get fined.

 
larryt700
Mar 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

You are an IDIOT!

 
larryt700
Mar 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Yeah, way to go Democan'ts! Let history truly repeat itself. Remember what happened the last time Democan'ts tried to develop a health care system? Yeah, that's where the clintards, specifically hitlery interjected a middle man into the health care system under the guise of hmo and ppo's. What did it do? Allowed insurance companies to decide who got service and who didn't. No small wonder that the healthcare system claims over 100,000 lives a year!

 
larryt700
Mar 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: serejka Show

Yeah! They could care less about the homeless on the streets! Plus, wait until the Obama Death Boards are convened! Just wait and see! This is just another example of stupidity at its finest... I wish the liberals would have stuck with the global warming scam now.

 
larryt700
Mar 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

OK IDIOT! This is just the board under the INDIAN HEALTH CARE PROGRAM I cut and paste directly from your link

‘‘(a) ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENTS.—Subject to sub14
section (e), an Indian Health Program shall be eligible for
15 payments under this title with respect to items and serv16
ices furnished by the Program if the furnishing of such
17 services meets all the conditions and requirements which
18 are applicable generally to the furnishing of items and
19 services under this title.’’.
20 (2) REPEAL OF OBSOLETE

 
larryt700
Mar 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

Here is another one

‘‘(a) ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENT FOR MEDICAL AS20
SISTANCE.—An Indian Health Program shall be eligible
21 for payment for medical assistance provided under a State
22 plan or under waiver authority with respect to items and
23 services furnished by the Program if the furnishing of
24 such services meets all the conditions and requirements
25 which are applicable generally to the furnishing of items
and services under this title and under such plan or waiver
2 authority.’’.

BASICALLY THE GOVERNMENT DECIDES WHAT HEALTH CARE TREATMENTS YOU RECEIVE AND WHAT YOU DON'T!!!!

Uh, can you say socialism at it's finest! And STILL those homeless people will not go to the doctor!

 
larryt700
Mar 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

the appropriate level of Federal funding
14 that should be established for health care under the
15 contract health services program described in sub16
section (a)(1); and
17 (2) how to most efficiently utilize such funding.

This is where the BOARD decides by issue of a research report, how much funding should be applied for health care....

SOUND FREAKIN LIKE A DEATH BOARD TO ME!!!!!!

 
larryt700
Mar 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

You guys weren't satisfied with killing Teri Schaivo?????

 
larryt700
Mar 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

Let me dummy it down even more for you!

Why is there a requirement for boards? Funding?

Let's say that the government (your lawmakers) says, "OK, you need to cut the healthcare budget by 800 million."

What happens? Well, we got this program that cures cancer that costs 500 million but only saves 30% of the people treated, but without it, 100% will die. OK that's 45% there, what else?

There is this heart transplant program where it saves lives but they only live an average of five years that costs 400 million...

BINGO! We got our death boards deciding what treatments and who dies.

Now, don't go a thinkin that you are going to purchase your own treatments outside of the medical benefits that you already have like Canadians do when they come into this country for treatment. No, then you get your entire health care benefits taken away Mr. Rich Guy!

 
larryt700
Mar 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gaudior Show

Regulation? What exactly do you think they are regulating other than the quality of care that you will receive???? SERIOUSLY!

 
larryt700
Mar 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gaudior Show

All they are going to regulate are the high priced specialsts who will go to other countries to get paid. SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK! Why specialize in a certain area when you would get the same scraps as a general practitioner. Are people that naive????? This is madness!

 
larryt700
Mar 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gaudior Show

SOUNDS GREAT!!!! So, you will be here in one year to 'assert' these same flowery words????

ROTFLMAO

 
larryt700
Mar 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gaudior Show

Check the very first paragraph of this link on the definition of socialism....

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-socialism.htm

Additionally, history is what tells me this is socialism and that specialists will leave the country. Look very carefully at Canada and since I need to spoon-feed you, I will post another link to help you out.

http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/page9.html

Feel free to go to the page that says Health Care and the Economy where Canada paid 100 billion in 2001 for government health care...

So, in this economy, we are going to get a 'good deal'? I simply think people should get off their lazy asses and work!

 
larryt700
Mar 23, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gaudior Show

Then that makes you absolutely more of an idiot! So, you are now forced to provide healthcare for others.... You provide your own healthcare through your insurance and your work..... But now you have to provide health care for others who cannot afford it.... Wait.... That's called redistribution of wealth. Some folks call it forced charity... But how can it be charity when it is forced??? Yes!!! That is called MARXISM!!!! WE ARE OFFICIALLY SOCIALIST WHICH IS ONE STEP TOWARD COMMUNISM. WE HAVE HANDED THE CHOICE OF OUR OWN HEALTHCARE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!! GOOD LUCK!!!!

 
larryt700
Mar 24, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gaudior Show

The first income tax was started in 1861. So now I have to teach those who oppose me???? Seems kind of weird that I have to feed you information. I know you are a lost cause as far as sense and reason so to everyone else..... DON'T DRINK THE KOOL AID!!!!!

 
larryt700
Mar 24, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gaudior Show

Embicile please! I give you free advice and you complain about the means in which it was administered? Information isn't cheap, so don't complain! Redistribution of wealth? The rich have been redistributing wealth more than any other class in this country for longer than there have been taxes. This redistribution of wealth has come by the means of JOBS.

Back to that in a minute: So, you like this forced health care system which people can choose to partake in or not to participate? The problem with that is that this so-called 'system' has to be paid for. So, those of us that are working and trying to make ends meet, have to pay more to pay for those who cannot afford and won't work to pay for their own? Seriously! All you are creating is a niche for those to simply not work and there is no incentive for people to work. That is why communism failed to begin with... Yes, socialism is one step toward communism.... Do you need another lesson in that? Anyway, so all one has to do is exist in this country and they can ride the backs of the fewer and fewer working class out there. All you are going to find is more and more people not paying a dime, yet utilizing the services to no end. That's it! We are disolving into a cesspool of dependant and lazy people.

Now back to punishing the rich who provide those jobs. How are they going to pay? By allowing less jobs to be available... That's how it works! When all of these ridiculous stimulus packages were 'redistributed' among all of those huge companies, what did those companies do to show the government that they were serious about saving money? YES! They cut 500, 1,000 and 10,000 jobs! You got it, but you are too simple minded to see past the rhetoric of this new bill that arises amidst the worst recession in modern history. So you libtards go patting yourselves on the back and see where this leads.... I bet you won't be here in a year touting an 'I told you so.'

 
larryt700
Mar 24, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gaudior Show

Ahhhh carefully crafted stupidity! There is a huge difference between taxes that pay for government and taxes that could even be remotely considered as spreading the wealth. INCOME TAXES ARE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT STARTED 'SPREADING THE WEALTH'!

 
larryt700
Mar 24, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dw3llz Show

Another misinformed kool aid drinker... Wonderful!

 
larryt700
Mar 24, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gaudior Show

My stimulus bill? I advocate no spreading of wealth in either direction! AT ALL EMBICILE! You are a moron who has to make accusations in order to throw people off of the truth and the truth is that you are a communist! That's it! YOU ARE A DANGER TO THIS COUNTRY!!! If you think that redistributing wealth is the answer, then you share the same ideals as Fidel Castro, Karl Marx and Osama.... I meant Obama.

 
larryt700
Mar 24, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gaudior Show

Spelling moron not spellin.... At least bring your see n say so that you can spell the simplest of words you communist!

 
larryt700
Mar 25, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: serejka Show

Oh no, you are safe, you are just dumb....

 
larryt700
Mar 25, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: serejka Show

Oh no, you are safe, you are just dumb!

 
larryt700
Mar 25, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: serejka Show

Yes, yes and yes, you FINALLY got something right!

 
elliotd123
Sep 16, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: halachuinic Show

That is exactly the problem. Now EVERYONE has to pay for other people's bills. The same works the other way. Those people who are "risk lovers" (drunk drivers, religious fast-food eaters, motorcyclists) get health care payed for by those people who care about themselves more. Is that right?

I don't think so. And that's why health care should be a free market deal. The focus shouldn't be on taking other people's money to provide health care for the less fortunate. If you take the risk of not having health insurance because you think you're healthy, and then you get hit by a car, you SHOULD get the health care you need, and you should also take on the responsibility of paying for it. It's your own fault for not having the insurance, NOT the government's fault for not providing it for you.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

Fashion