- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
1. When did I ever say that the government should "force it down their throats"? This is something that I believe should happen, but that doesn't mean I think the constitution should be circumvented.
2. Hospitals can't let people who are having a medical emergency die because they can't afford a procedure, but for all other treatments they can. For example if you have some disease that is on insurance companies list of preexisting conditions (a list that is growing) then you would be able to get insurance. And if you can't afford to pay for your treatment out of pocket (incredibly unlikely) then you will die. 50% of bankruptcies are related to medical costs. Is it really fair that a person should be given the choice between being poor or being alive? I think America can do better than that.
Are you capable of actually responding to arguments or do you say random things? How much the department of energy spends has nothing to do with my reasons for supporting health care reform. I consider the right to medical care so important I don't care how much we have to spend to allow it. Not only that but we already spend more than any other country on healthcare, I don't see how we can get any worse than that.
My two main reasons for being in favor of health care reform are as follows:
A) I think that having access to the best medical care possible is a fundamental human right. This has nothing to do with "getting" anything. It's just different morals. I am not okay with a single human being dying simply because they cannot afford treatment. I'm not saying my moral beliefs are better, they are just different. I don't understand why people have to make everything into an I'm right/you're wrong situation. If you think that it's fair for people to suffer and die because they are poor, then that's just what you believe.
B) My other reason is more fact driven than opinion. It is a fact that we spend more money on healthcare than every other country. It is also a fact that the world health organization ranked our quality of care at 37th in the world. Where does all of that money go when we still have a lackluster system? The answer is health insurance companies. It is a fact that premiums have been rising for years while at the same time coverage is being taken away for things like preexisting conditions. We need to develop an alternative to the monopoly insurance companies have on our health. I'm sure most people understand that when you buy things in bulk, they are cheaper. Most people have been to a Costco or other consumer cooperative or at least get the premise. This exact same concept can be used to make healthcare cheaper. If the government provides health insurance, it will lower the cost that we will pay (in taxes) as opposed to the money our employers or ourselves pay for health insurance. This is not to say that I, or any other liberals are advocating the elimination of private insurance. If you like your private insurance, then you can keep it. Even you will benefit from the plan, however, because the increased competition will force insurance companies to decrease their prices.
I'm not really sure what it is I don't get. From my moral point of view it is the right thing to do, and from an objective economic point of view it is as well.
That is not even close to what I said. I said I hope you are a teenager because you have a very immature worldview, so at least if you are young you have an excuse. What you said was so absurd and backed up by so little evidence that I honestly didn't even see the point in acknowledging it beyond what I said. But since you asked so nicely...
I've already told you how calling feminists feminazis is just your brand of sexism, but you can't seem to get past your intolerance so I won't be discussing that further.
Saying that ugly women are more likely to want equal rights than attractive women is just a colossally stupid thing to say, and unless you can provide any evidence to support this I'm not going to discuss ignorant, baseless generalizations.
About political correctness, I've said this before, but saying that Republicans are against political correctness isn't true. They just care about different things than liberals. To preface this I want to point out that I think political correctness is unnecessary, but at the same time if you don't take other peoples' feelings into account before you say things then you're an asshole. Back to the point about Republicans, did you not hear Republicans during the Bush administration condemning people for criticizing Bush during wartime? This is an example of right-wing political correctness and there are more examples here
You are so incredibly immature and misguided it's shocking. You lack the ability to not view the world in absolutist terms. Because you have little experience you base your worldview on generalizations and popular stereotypes and misconceptions. For your sake I hope you are a teenager because if you are then at least there is hope for you to grow up someday.
I think you misheard Oregon as Obama. The program in question is Oregon's medicaid program, not "Obama's" program which does not exist yet. The health care bill does not insist on assisted suicide I really hope you realize that. And it does not offer free health insurance to illegal immigrants: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
Now referring to the video, the reason that Oregon's medicaid program would not pay for her was that she had a less than 5% survival rate over 5 years. The program has a policy that they will not pay for treatment if there less than 5% survival rate. It seems harsh, but medicaid programs do not have excess cash floating around, and if they always paid for expensive treatments for people who really had no chance of living they could run out of money to pay for treatments which would very likely or almost certainly help people a lot. It's really a choice of the lesser of two evils, but if it's either the program goes bankrupt or people with no chance are not treated, then you can see how they would choose the latter. By the way the manufacturer of the drug gave it to her for free and she died 6 months after being denied by medicaid. I'm not saying I think rationing is a good thing to do. I think everyone in the country deserves access to the best treatment available and if there isn't enough money in the program allocate more and just cut from the military budget. But I want to you see that A) This woman's situation was more complicated than the shallow coverage led you to believe and B) The US health care does not contain any rationing provisions so its a moot point.
I don't understand how you can be against health care reform. As you may have heard we spend a greater percentage of our GDP than any other country 16%. Yet the WHO ranks our quality of health care at 37th in the world among the worst of the developed world. This isn't an issue of left vs. right. This is an issue of the insurance companies vs. citizens. Premiums continue to increase as do insurance companies profits, yet our care gets no people. They make money by denying coverage. They are screwing us all over and laughing all the way to bank. The health care bill will not eliminate private coverage. If you are happy with your care awesome. Adding a public option will simply prevent insurance companies from reaming us quite as hard. If you don't like the conditions of the public option, which are highly exaggerated, then stick with your private insurance. All of this crap misinformation that is being spread about health care reform originates from, big surprise, insurance companies. I read a leaked document that planned out in exquisite detail how to propagandize the public with lies and destroy the debate. You can follow the trail of money with this stuff and see right where it leads to. Please as Americans we need to stop falling into the stupid political theater that works so well for these people profiting of us and open up our eyes. It will benefit everyone except private health insurance companies to have this bill passed. You can get the public option if you don't have insurance and if you have private insurance your premiums will go down through competitive forces.
If you have any questions you want to ask me about stuff you are concerned about that you have been hearing about the health care bill or health care reform in general please do so. I want you and all conservatives on our side where you belong. It pains me to see people, on either side, being used as puppets by people looking out for their own selfish interests.
But some people are also paying for some services that you are using that they are not using. If you drive a car then everyone who doesn't drive a car is paying to make sure your car is safe. We all take care of each other. It's called living in a society. And if you are incapable of accepting that as a justification(sociopathy) then just realize that even if you only paid for services you do want, you would be paying a hell of a lot more than you are paying in taxes right now each year.
One of the reason that government programs exist, if you are only capable of being selfish, is because what is known as an externality. So let's say for example everyone pays for their own private fire departments. Now hypothetically you're rich and you spend a lot of money on the best company there is. But your neighbors don't want to pay all that money. So their houses catch fire which then spreads to yours and it doesn't matter how much you spent. Another example is environmental regulation. We need someone to test air quality and make sure that it is safe. This benefits us all, regardless of whether or not each specific person pays. So everyone decides they won't pay because they want a free ride, so it doesn't get done. Like I said earlier this is not a zero-sum scenario just like iterated prisoners' dilemma so quit trying to beat the other player.
Yeah then Olivia could buy the ice cream in bulk and I pay less for my share than I would have by myself and not only that, but like xaeon said I could also help people get ice cream who didn't have any. Win/win situation.
I love conservatives who assume they would be able to pay for their share of all the services they receive from the government by themselves. Why don't you calculate how much it would cost to have a company inspect all of your food, your cars, your water, keep a standing personal army, fire department, police station, buy your own roads, build your own airports and maintain security and traffic control, regulate and maintain quality of airplanes, send your kids to private school from kindergarten through college, monitor the spread of infectious diseases and respond with vaccinations and treatment so as to protect yourself et cetera. I'm sure I missed a ton of things, but this was what I could think of off the top of my head. The point is I don't think anyone could afford all of the things the government does themselves. The fact is things become cheaper when you purchase them collectively. Taxation and government spending are not a zero-sum situation. That is a participants gain or loss is not equally balanced by the respective loss and gain of another participant.
Please stop making oversimplified immature arguments; they are childish.