So Let's See What Happens

[bu villain]

Basic healthcare services are already cheap enough not to be a problem...

My stance on that isn't that people can't afford a checkup its that people are actively not choosing to spend their money that way. I would like a system that will encourage people to take a more active role in their health than they currently do.

So who should be taxed more? The 50% of the population that pays more taxes than they get refunded and likely already pay for their insurance, or the other 50% of the population that dont pay federal income taxes and are more likely to not have insurance?

As I am in the half that does pay taxes, I'm not thrilled about it either but that is a whole other issue. Feel free to start a new thread for that.

You have shown in your statements that you really have no clue about what you are typing in regards to taxation or healthcare costs, including insurance.

I admit, I am not a health care, taxation, or public policy expert, never claimed to be. You aren't either despite your smug demeanor. I suppose I could just shut my mouth about what I feel is right and let you tell me what is good for me. I'm truly fine that you don't agree with me but what does bother me is how dissmissive you are of any idea I bring up as a possible way of bettering the health of our fellow Americans. If half of all Americans died tomorrow you wouldn't care as long it could somehow be attributed to a poor choice they made at some point in their lives. You've made it clear that your goal is to show argumentative superiority, not to search for ways to improve lives.

[David88vert]

My stance on that isn't that people can't afford a checkup its that people are actively not choosing to spend their money that way. I would like a system that will encourage people to take a more active role in their health than they currently do.
As I am in the half that does pay taxes, I'm not thrilled about it either but that is a whole other issue. Feel free to start a new thread for that.
I admit, I am not a health care, taxation, or public policy expert, never claimed to be. You aren't either despite your smug demeanor. I suppose I could just shut my mouth about what I feel is right and let you tell me what is good for me. I'm truly fine that you don't agree with me but what does bother me is how dissmissive you are of any idea I bring up as a possible way of bettering the health of our fellow Americans. If half of all Americans died tomorrow you wouldn't care as long it could somehow be attributed to a poor choice they made at some point in their lives. You've made it clear that your goal is to show argumentative superiority, not to search for ways to improve lives.

In your above statement, you have stated that people are not choosing to allocate their own funding to provide healthcare to their own benefit. They made that choice. You seem to think that a solution to this is to put this responsibility in the hands of the government, rather than educate individuals to practice personal responsibility. Have you ever heard the adage, "Give a man a fish today, and you will have to provide him another tomorrow, but if you teach him to fish today, he will be able to provide for himself."?

You do not answer the questions posed to you, and when you do make a statement, you make it errantly. You are not proposing anything that will improve health or extend lives, as I have shown previously in the thread. You are simply proposing an increase in the cost of healthcare, to create a rationed system that will undermine the financial well-being of US citizens who are currently doing the right thing to provide proper planning for their families. You seem to think that the responsible people of society should be massively penalized to supplement those who have no desire to take responsibilty for their own actions.

I have shown repeatedly that the argument that basic healthcare is too expensive and will cause families to enter bankruptcy is a falacy, and that emergency care is already provided to those in need, regardless of their ability to pay for it. Your arguments are null and void, if you do not have anything further to bring to the table. Since your ideas are not moving us forward, perhaps you should listen to voices more reasonable and logical, that live in reality, rather than an utopian dreamland.

I already made it very clear how to improve the healthcare system, but it appears that you are unable to mentally process and retain the information, or you chose to ignore it. I stated many times that the issue is healthcare costs, not the service provided. In order to reduce these costs, people must practice personal responsibility and purchase their insurace to cover just the major costs, and pay the rest out of pocket - just like auto insurance, house insurance, etc. This would reduce the amount that is paid to insurance companies in the form of premiums, and would allow the free market to lower costs. As insurance companies would be paying out less, they would have the ability to lower their rates to be more competitive with other companies providing the same insurance services.
Additionally, tort reform could reduce the amount that doctors have to pay for medical malpractice insurance, and could help address the high cost of some procedures. It is unlikely to have an effect on basic healthcare services costs; however, as they are already affordable. If you truly are unable to afford a doctor's visit, there are many free clinics across the country. There is no excuse for a single-payer, government-run healthcare system.

And finally, half of all Americans are not going to die from not receiving free doctor's checkups. You are being overly dramatic with your statements, and not putting forth factual statements. You only state unfounded ideas, I put forth facts and sources. Do you really think that you have a leg to stand on when you are not able to address the correct issues without substance?

[bu villain]

In your above statement, you have stated that people are not choosing to allocate their own funding to provide healthcare to their own benefit. They made that choice. You seem to think that a solution to this is to put this responsibility in the hands of the government, rather than educate individuals to practice personal responsibility. Have you ever heard the adage, "Give a man a fish today, and you will have to provide him another tomorrow, but if you teach him to fish today, he will be able to provide for himself."?

So who exactly is teaching these people to fish? Because they don't seem to be doing a very good job. I am a proponent of personal responsibility as well but I just don't see it as the end all be all of morality.

You do not answer the questions posed to you, and when you do make a statement, you make it errantly. You are not proposing anything that will improve health or extend lives, as I have shown previously in the thread. You are simply proposing an increase in the cost of healthcare, to create a rationed system that will undermine the financial well-being of US citizens who are currently doing the right thing to provide proper planning for their families. You seem to think that the responsible people of society should be massively penalized to supplement those who have no desire to take responsibilty for their own actions.

Many of the ideas I gave are not verifiable until we try them so how can you claim they won't help as if it were fact. You call helping others a penalty, I call it being a good neighbor. Of course we have to draw the line somewhere though. I draw it after helping with basic healthcare but I also wouldn't propose you should pay for his mortgage.

I have shown repeatedly that the argument that basic healthcare is too expensive and will cause families to enter bankruptcy is a falacy, and that emergency care is already provided to those in need, regardless of their ability to pay for it. Your arguments are null and void, if you do not have anything further to bring to the table. Since your ideas are not moving us forward, perhaps you should listen to voices more reasonable and logical, that live in reality, rather than an utopian dreamland.

I'm getting tired of saying this but ....

I DON'T BELIEVE BASIC HEALTHCARE COSTS CAUSE BANKRUPTCY

I already made it very clear how to improve the healthcare system, but it appears that you are unable to mentally process and retain the information, or you chose to ignore it. I stated many times that the issue is healthcare costs, not the service provided. In order to reduce these costs, people must practice personal responsibility and purchase their insurace to cover just the major costs, and pay the rest out of pocket - just like auto insurance, house insurance, etc. This would reduce the amount that is paid to insurance companies in the form of premiums, and would allow the free market to lower costs. As insurance companies would be paying out less, they would have the ability to lower their rates to be more competitive with other companies providing the same insurance services.
Additionally, tort reform could reduce the amount that doctors have to pay for medical malpractice insurance, and could help address the high cost of some procedures. It is unlikely to have an effect on basic healthcare services costs; however, as they are already affordable. If you truly are unable to afford a doctor's visit, there are many free clinics across the country. There is no excuse for a single-payer, government-run healthcare system.

Your solution of having people be personal responsible is the status quo. It isn't a solution, it's a rationalization.

Tort reform: You haven't discussed this with me yet so don't say I'm ignoring your ideas. I'm all for looking at ways to reduce doctor's liabilities where reasonable but I don't see it as reducing costs that significantly because the fact is doctors make mistakes and it is reasonable that wronged patients get compensation. The nature of working on people's bodies is going to lead to those mistakes being very costly because the effects can be so serious. If you would like to discuss specifically how we can reduce these liabilities I am all ears.

And finally, half of all Americans are not going to die from not receiving free doctor's checkups. You are being overly dramatic with your statements, and not putting forth factual statements. You only state unfounded ideas, I put forth facts and sources. Do you really think that you have a leg to stand on when you are not able to address the correct issues without substance?

Of course I was being overly dramatic with my statement because I was using exaggeration to make a point. Answer this question, if we knew there was a deadly outbreak of some virus and everyone could just go to a CVS and get innoculated for 50 bucks, would you feel any remorse if half the population decided not to get the shot and died?

[BanginJimmy]

So who exactly is teaching these people to fish? Because they don't seem to be doing a very good job.

I'll give you a hint. It is the same people you want to make your health care decisions for you.

Many of the ideas I gave are not verifiable until we try them so how can you claim they won't help as if it were fact.

All of these things have been tried before and are currently used in Europe and several other countries. They resulted in increased costs, reduced quality of care and rationing in every occasion. I dont want to hear your Nancy Pelosi line "we have to pass the bill to see whats in it" crap. These are not new, untested concepts.

You call helping others a penalty, I call it being a good neighbor.

So when is my "neighbor" going to contribute something? It seems that I am doing all the contributing and he is doing all the leeching.

Of course we have to draw the line somewhere though. I draw it after helping with basic healthcare but I also wouldn't propose you should pay for his mortgage.

Didnt you say earlier we, as tax PAYERS, should also pay for major care?

Your solution of having people be personal responsible is the status quo. It isn't a solution, it's a rationalization.

Call it what you will, but it is better than the current ideas coming from Washington.

Tort reform: You haven't discussed this with me yet so don't say I'm ignoring your ideas. I'm all for looking at ways to reduce doctor's liabilities where reasonable but I don't see it as reducing costs that significantly because the fact is doctors make mistakes and it is reasonable that wronged patients get compensation. The nature of working on people's bodies is going to lead to those mistakes being very costly because the effects can be so serious. If you would like to discuss specifically how we can reduce these liabilities I am all ears.

No one ever said anything about eliminating torts, just reforming them. There most definitely needs to be a cap on punitive damages and we need a loser pays system to get rid of all the garbage lawsuits.

Tort reform also goes MUCH further than just malpractice insurance rates though. You also have tens of billions spent every year by doctors performing unnecessary tests and procedures as a defense against lawsuits.

Of course I was being overly dramatic with my statement because I was using exaggeration to make a point. Answer this question, if we knew there was a deadly outbreak of some virus and everyone could just go to a CVS and get innoculated for 50 bucks, would you feel any remorse if half the population decided not to get the shot and died?

none at all, in fact, I would probably be pretty happy about it. Anyone that ignorant is more than likely a sponge on society and society as a whole would be better off without them infecting it. If you make the choice that $50 is more important than your life, then you deserve what you get.

[David88vert]

BanginJimmy answered exactly as I would.

[bu villain]

Thanks for the debate but I'm ready to move on now. I definitely learned some things and will continue to consider other points of view. Happy New Years everyone.