Obama & Huckabee
- Thread starter Peter Parka
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
111Replies
-
2KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
If it wasn't nation-wide, it wouldn't be called nationalized healthcare. It'd be localized healthcare.
Pudding Time
Banned
I'm all for states running whatever they want. I love the 10th Amendment. And last time I checked, healthcare wasn't included in the Constitution, which in my opinion makes it an issue best left up to the states. Yet another reason I don't like the plans that have been presented...
this is very interesting but bear in mind we do not have a great deal of coverage in the UK.
could everyone who has posted on this thread please pm me with their views on candidtates and why so i might grasp this.i would appreciate it very much.
and please tell me why black or female is so important.
which policies are most important and why,thanaks.
i know its a chore but i would really appreciate it,the persons who have posted are the people whose posts i enjoy and agree/disagree with most also
could everyone who has posted on this thread please pm me with their views on candidtates and why so i might grasp this.i would appreciate it very much.
and please tell me why black or female is so important.
which policies are most important and why,thanaks.
i know its a chore but i would really appreciate it,the persons who have posted are the people whose posts i enjoy and agree/disagree with most also
Pudding Time
Banned
it's not just we aren't ready for A woman .. it's THE woman running that no one is ready for (nor ever will be imo).
and I don't think I should have to help pay for people's lung cancer either .. I am totally opposed to state/gov run healthcare .. they have medicaid .. that's enough imo.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
Pudding Time
Banned
Your government allows cigarettes to be sold to the general public, and therefor should provide health care for those affected by it.
The alternative is to push your government to ban the sale of cigarettes due to health risks. Yet the amount of money the government generates through cigarette sales would cover the health care of smoking related illnesses.
GraceAbounds
Well-Known Member
In college we did a 'skit' showing the POV's from one extreme side to the other - but understand it is all based on factual research.
Donnie requested me to post this, so here it is for those that are interested:
Should Healthcare be a right (pro) or a privilege (con)?
PRO 1: Government exists for the protection and general welfare of the people. What is more basic to a person's general welfare than health care? "We the people" have agreed that our government should provide us police and fire protection. Is getting cancer any less imminent of a threat?
CON 1: Sure, the government's responsibility is to protect its citizens and their rights. But the government is not meant to be used as a way to take money from someone who has more and directly give it to someone with less. The government is also not in place to take money that does not belong to them from their citizens just because they are seen as better off. You can’t force charity. That would equate to government sponsored theft.
CON 2: I agree. Americans need to accept responsibility for their own choices. Choose their behavior, choose their consequences. For example, when people take jobs, they know if medical insurance is offered as a benefit. So if you want a job with benefits, then choose to get qualified for one. It's all about choices.
PRO 2: But not everyone is going to qualify for a job that offers medical benefits. And people that don’t qualify for those jobs are no less important or valuable because of that fact. Health care should be a right for every American -- not a privilege for the wealthy, which is more and more of what healthcare in this country has become.
CON 2: I would suggest then that Americans find some way to secure an education that will arm them with the ability to seek a decent job that will enable them to afford health insurance instead of push for it to be stolen out of the pockets of others. That is the way it works here in America.
PRO 2: Well it doesn’t seem to be working very well then in my opinion because in many cases it has become as simple as if you get sick without health insurance, too bad -- you die.
PRO 1: Very true Pro 2. There are very rich and powerful insurance companies that are just scooping out profits to the detriment of patients, doctors and hospitals. We have allowed the health care of Americans to turn into a for-profit industry and the results of that are proving disastrous. Health insurance that Americans receive through their employers is on the verge of collapse.
CON 2: You know, for more than 10 years, I did not have a job that included health care options. Rather than whine to others, I lived frugally so as to be able to purchase basic health insurance for our family of four. People should not, except in rare emergency circumstances, rely on others to care for their families.
PRO 1: I agree that people need to be responsible. But it is not as simple as just living frugally anymore; just trying to find companies or private insurance that offer affordable health care or any health care coverage at all is getting scarce. Many employers are not offering health insurance any more. In 2004 in the United States, of 293 million Americans, more than44 million people, including more than 9 million children, had no health insurance and either experienced sharply reduced access to the health care system or were excluded altogether.
CON 2: Uninsured children? The parents of those children, except for real emergencies, should be subject to child neglect charges. If people cannot afford to properly care for children, they have no business having them.
PRO 2: We can’t go around outlawing people from having children. But we can help put an end to the fact that nearly 4 hundred people in the U.S. are going to die in the next week as a direct result of being uninsured. What do you have to say about the 18,000 people in the U.S. that will die this year due to being uninsured?
CON 1: I’d say the sooner that people realize that healthcare is a privilege the better for us all. Why should doctors who spend years of their lives and large sums of money to learn their skills be enslaved to patients who come to them with their need for medical care but no way to pay for the medical services they expect to receive? Why should the rest of us, through the inevitable increase in taxes, be forced to provide heath care for those that are not productive and cannot afford it? I’ll tell you why. It is because of our free-market capitalistic forces that America is able to provide excellent healthcare technology that is sought after all over the world.
CON 2: That is true and might I add that without "excessive profits" of insurance and pharmaceutical companies, there would be no funding for vital research. It is rather ironic that in other countries that have socialized national health care, when an important leader of that country is critically ill, he is rushed to America for treatment or American-trained doctors are rushed to him. It is a testament to the fact that health care under a socialized system would do nothing but create increasingly sub-standard healthcare at increasing costs.
PRO 1: Well according to the World Health Organization, Canadians are just as healthy if not healthier than Americans. And Canadians spend about $1,600 per person annually for health care compared to about $6,000 per American. With less money, all Canadians receive basic health-care coverage. They get prescription drugs at affordable prices and they don't have 44 million uninsured people as America does.
CON 1: You are only talking about the premiums Canadians pay every month. What you are failing to mention is that in addition to the premium Canadians pay for insurance, they also pay much higher taxes. Canadians in addition to their premium pay between 25 to 50% of their income to taxes to keep the health care system, Canada’s #1 expense, afloat.
PRO 2: Well according to the New England Journal of Medicine, switching to a single-payer health care system would save the United States $200 billion each year in administrative costs alone.
PRO 1: Exactly! Administrative costs make up 31 percent of total health-care costs in the United States, compared to 1.3 percent that Canada spends to administer its national health system, or 16.7 percent if one included Canada's administrative costs of private insurance.
CON 2: I would not classify what Canada has as a health care system. It is more like a health diagnosis system. Patients get in to see a doctor quick so the doctor can tell them "yes indeed you are sick or you need an operation" but the challenge comes when treatment or an operation is actually needed. Canada’s so called health care has waiting lists out the ying yang, some as much as 2 years down the road.
PRO 2: No system is going to be perfect, but failing to see the faults in our own system is not productive at all. There is clearly a crisis in our OWN health care system. It has gotten to the point where the poor, the underemployed and many in the middle class are shut off to receiving health care. According to the National Coalition on Health Care, the average family health insurance premiums exceed $14,500. All people need medical care and cost should not keep them from seeing a doctor.
PRO 1: A single payer plan such as the Medicare program, use a national agency to collect medical fees and pay claims. By having a single payer system everyone could have a base plan and choice of doctor.
CON 1: Those systems have not worked well where they’ve been implemented. Society would not allow the government to decide what kind of health coverage they should have. We must have freedom of choice in this country.
CON 2: Exactly. Furthermore many younger citizens may opt to not pay into the system and be uninsured by choice. What are you going to do? Make them pay?
PRO 1: A single payer system could save $280 billion yearly just on excessive paperwork. This savings could cover all of the health care costs for all Americans that are currently uninsured. Surely human lives are worth more than paperwork.
Donnie requested me to post this, so here it is for those that are interested:
Should Healthcare be a right (pro) or a privilege (con)?
PRO 1: Government exists for the protection and general welfare of the people. What is more basic to a person's general welfare than health care? "We the people" have agreed that our government should provide us police and fire protection. Is getting cancer any less imminent of a threat?
CON 1: Sure, the government's responsibility is to protect its citizens and their rights. But the government is not meant to be used as a way to take money from someone who has more and directly give it to someone with less. The government is also not in place to take money that does not belong to them from their citizens just because they are seen as better off. You can’t force charity. That would equate to government sponsored theft.
CON 2: I agree. Americans need to accept responsibility for their own choices. Choose their behavior, choose their consequences. For example, when people take jobs, they know if medical insurance is offered as a benefit. So if you want a job with benefits, then choose to get qualified for one. It's all about choices.
PRO 2: But not everyone is going to qualify for a job that offers medical benefits. And people that don’t qualify for those jobs are no less important or valuable because of that fact. Health care should be a right for every American -- not a privilege for the wealthy, which is more and more of what healthcare in this country has become.
CON 2: I would suggest then that Americans find some way to secure an education that will arm them with the ability to seek a decent job that will enable them to afford health insurance instead of push for it to be stolen out of the pockets of others. That is the way it works here in America.
PRO 2: Well it doesn’t seem to be working very well then in my opinion because in many cases it has become as simple as if you get sick without health insurance, too bad -- you die.
PRO 1: Very true Pro 2. There are very rich and powerful insurance companies that are just scooping out profits to the detriment of patients, doctors and hospitals. We have allowed the health care of Americans to turn into a for-profit industry and the results of that are proving disastrous. Health insurance that Americans receive through their employers is on the verge of collapse.
CON 2: You know, for more than 10 years, I did not have a job that included health care options. Rather than whine to others, I lived frugally so as to be able to purchase basic health insurance for our family of four. People should not, except in rare emergency circumstances, rely on others to care for their families.
PRO 1: I agree that people need to be responsible. But it is not as simple as just living frugally anymore; just trying to find companies or private insurance that offer affordable health care or any health care coverage at all is getting scarce. Many employers are not offering health insurance any more. In 2004 in the United States, of 293 million Americans, more than44 million people, including more than 9 million children, had no health insurance and either experienced sharply reduced access to the health care system or were excluded altogether.
CON 2: Uninsured children? The parents of those children, except for real emergencies, should be subject to child neglect charges. If people cannot afford to properly care for children, they have no business having them.
PRO 2: We can’t go around outlawing people from having children. But we can help put an end to the fact that nearly 4 hundred people in the U.S. are going to die in the next week as a direct result of being uninsured. What do you have to say about the 18,000 people in the U.S. that will die this year due to being uninsured?
CON 1: I’d say the sooner that people realize that healthcare is a privilege the better for us all. Why should doctors who spend years of their lives and large sums of money to learn their skills be enslaved to patients who come to them with their need for medical care but no way to pay for the medical services they expect to receive? Why should the rest of us, through the inevitable increase in taxes, be forced to provide heath care for those that are not productive and cannot afford it? I’ll tell you why. It is because of our free-market capitalistic forces that America is able to provide excellent healthcare technology that is sought after all over the world.
CON 2: That is true and might I add that without "excessive profits" of insurance and pharmaceutical companies, there would be no funding for vital research. It is rather ironic that in other countries that have socialized national health care, when an important leader of that country is critically ill, he is rushed to America for treatment or American-trained doctors are rushed to him. It is a testament to the fact that health care under a socialized system would do nothing but create increasingly sub-standard healthcare at increasing costs.
PRO 1: Well according to the World Health Organization, Canadians are just as healthy if not healthier than Americans. And Canadians spend about $1,600 per person annually for health care compared to about $6,000 per American. With less money, all Canadians receive basic health-care coverage. They get prescription drugs at affordable prices and they don't have 44 million uninsured people as America does.
CON 1: You are only talking about the premiums Canadians pay every month. What you are failing to mention is that in addition to the premium Canadians pay for insurance, they also pay much higher taxes. Canadians in addition to their premium pay between 25 to 50% of their income to taxes to keep the health care system, Canada’s #1 expense, afloat.
PRO 2: Well according to the New England Journal of Medicine, switching to a single-payer health care system would save the United States $200 billion each year in administrative costs alone.
PRO 1: Exactly! Administrative costs make up 31 percent of total health-care costs in the United States, compared to 1.3 percent that Canada spends to administer its national health system, or 16.7 percent if one included Canada's administrative costs of private insurance.
CON 2: I would not classify what Canada has as a health care system. It is more like a health diagnosis system. Patients get in to see a doctor quick so the doctor can tell them "yes indeed you are sick or you need an operation" but the challenge comes when treatment or an operation is actually needed. Canada’s so called health care has waiting lists out the ying yang, some as much as 2 years down the road.
PRO 2: No system is going to be perfect, but failing to see the faults in our own system is not productive at all. There is clearly a crisis in our OWN health care system. It has gotten to the point where the poor, the underemployed and many in the middle class are shut off to receiving health care. According to the National Coalition on Health Care, the average family health insurance premiums exceed $14,500. All people need medical care and cost should not keep them from seeing a doctor.
PRO 1: A single payer plan such as the Medicare program, use a national agency to collect medical fees and pay claims. By having a single payer system everyone could have a base plan and choice of doctor.
CON 1: Those systems have not worked well where they’ve been implemented. Society would not allow the government to decide what kind of health coverage they should have. We must have freedom of choice in this country.
CON 2: Exactly. Furthermore many younger citizens may opt to not pay into the system and be uninsured by choice. What are you going to do? Make them pay?
PRO 1: A single payer system could save $280 billion yearly just on excessive paperwork. This savings could cover all of the health care costs for all Americans that are currently uninsured. Surely human lives are worth more than paperwork.
GraceAbounds
Well-Known Member
Like I said, Donnie requested for me to post it. Don't go discouraging people to read it just because you don't want to.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
Pudding Time
Banned
Why do Americans continue to think the only option for a socialized health care system is the one currently in place in Canada? There multiple variants out there to model a US version on. And there are things to learn from all of them.
Also. All those "cons" seem like they were writen by an arrogant selfish ignorant american, who's never see real hard times at all.
Also. All those "cons" seem like they were writen by an arrogant selfish ignorant american, who's never see real hard times at all.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
I really don't know why, and I live here! There are many variants of socialized health care out there....one of them (or a hybrid of some) could work for us.
GraceAbounds
Well-Known Member
I wish you'd read the top of the post that describes the skit and that it was written a certain way on purpose to show the extremes.
Also understand that the skit had a time limit to it, so it may not have everything in it that 'you' might want it to have.
GraceAbounds
Well-Known Member
They don't.
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members