Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > The Newsroom > Political Talk
Facebook

Notices

Political Talk Political News


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-22-2014, 09:42 AM
Fionn mac Cumh's Avatar
Fionn mac Cumh Fionn mac Cumh is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,378
Re: The Conservative Case for Single-Payer Health

How about this, if you cant afford to go to the Dr you shouldnt be allowed to. Period! Your right, you shouldnt have to pay for insurance. Its your right. Just dont go to the ER and stick me with the bill.

On a separate note, how do we decrease costs of health care?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-22-2014, 02:13 PM
Disciple4life's Avatar
Disciple4life Disciple4life is offline
Registered Saint


 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: St. Louis Area
Posts: 1,615
Re: The Conservative Case for Single-Payer Health

I have said many things on this subject. If anyone questions my beliefs go back and read everything I posted.

First let me say Auila does a very poor job of pleading his case for this argument. Auila this is said in love and respect but you missed some very good arguments for your case. Posting articles and links or 600 word essays usualy does not win people over to your way of thinking.

Second what is a better way? Let me play devil's advocate.

A. Give people emergency care but do not give people care for non life threatening sickness. Yeah I said it, turn people away if they have a cold or the flu.

B. So everybody has health care. If you are receiving welfare the penalty is deducted from your potential refund. (Actually it will be deducted from everyone's refund) So if you sit at home and usually get $1500 back in taxes, now you will only get $600 back because they deduct the $900 penalty. So we are in a sense spending less money because we are requiring people to be accountable for healthcare regardless of whether they want to participate or not.

We could use option A exclusively or vise versa. We could even use both options to an extent.

I know I have commented a lot on this thread but I decided to switch sides because I got tired of proving Aquila wrong with my superior logic.
__________________
In the Old Days, if you wanted to argue about religion you had to go to Church.
Nowadays you get on the internet!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-25-2014, 10:56 AM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: The Conservative Case for Single-Payer Health

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh View Post
How about this, if you cant afford to go to the Dr you shouldnt be allowed to. Period! Your right, you shouldnt have to pay for insurance. Its your right. Just dont go to the ER and stick me with the bill.

On a separate note, how do we decrease costs of health care?
That would decrease the cost of healthcare. To save a buck... we'd allow others who are not fortunate enough to pay for insurance or treatment to suffer and/or die.

Please note... in modern Israel, it is viewed as a moral imperative by rabbinical scholars. Health care in Israel is universal and participation in a medical insurance plan is compulsory.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-25-2014, 11:03 AM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: The Conservative Case for Single-Payer Health

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disciple4life View Post
I have said many things on this subject. If anyone questions my beliefs go back and read everything I posted.

First let me say Auila does a very poor job of pleading his case for this argument. Auila this is said in love and respect but you missed some very good arguments for your case. Posting articles and links or 600 word essays usualy does not win people over to your way of thinking.
Only among those who don't care to know the details.

Quote:
Second what is a better way? Let me play devil's advocate.

A. Give people emergency care but do not give people care for non life threatening sickness. Yeah I said it, turn people away if they have a cold or the flu.
Sometimes non-life threatening conditions can become life threatening. By then treatment is far more expensive. Also, by not treating colds and flu we'd increase public health risk by increasing the spreading of these conditions among those who were untreated. An expensive recipe for disaster.

Quote:
B. So everybody has health care. If you are receiving welfare the penalty is deducted from your potential refund. (Actually it will be deducted from everyone's refund) So if you sit at home and usually get $1500 back in taxes, now you will only get $600 back because they deduct the $900 penalty. So we are in a sense spending less money because we are requiring people to be accountable for healthcare regardless of whether they want to participate or not.
The majority of those who receive returns receive them based on child tax credit. To do what you're suggesting, we'd have to essentially deny the child tax credit to those who don't have insurance. This would hit working middle class families far harder than those on welfare or other forms of public assistance.

Quote:
We could use option A exclusively or vise versa. We could even use both options to an extent.
We could. However, while lowering the cost of health insurance and health care... we'd worse economic conditions for the middle class and actually help the spread of disease.

Quote:
I know I have commented a lot on this thread but I decided to switch sides because I got tired of proving Aquila wrong with my superior logic.
If the above is your example of superior logic... you might want to keep it to yourself. lol
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-25-2014, 12:28 PM
Disciple4life's Avatar
Disciple4life Disciple4life is offline
Registered Saint


 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: St. Louis Area
Posts: 1,615
Re: The Conservative Case for Single-Payer Health

Aquila, I was giving you some friendly trouble.

Correct me if I am wrong. But my B. initiative is basically in effect. People just have not realized it yet because they have not thought it through.

Poor working class people who have children who receive the unearned tax credit will be penalized for not having insurance. This hurts these families because they depend on that extra money at the end of the year.

So even though I don't like the principal of universal health insurance, the main resistance with the bill is the penalty for not having insurance.

I have made this point before. First we pay (through taxes) for the health care of uninsured people (not citizens)! Second we pay a second time because we are penalized if we do not carry personal insurance.

Why don't we do this with drivers. If an illegal alien comes to this country and does not have a drivers license and they hit somebody's car, the government pays for it? Why because we through our taxes pay for the uninsured drivers and then on top of that we are penalized if we don't carry auto insurance.

Yeah, that sounds fair to me.
__________________
In the Old Days, if you wanted to argue about religion you had to go to Church.
Nowadays you get on the internet!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vermont Goes Single Payer!!!! Dedicated Mind Political Talk 10 10-27-2013 06:25 AM
Failure of Single Payer Originalist Political Talk 15 10-25-2013 12:49 PM
Reid Signals Single Payer As The Next Step Dedicated Mind Political Talk 1 08-19-2013 09:25 AM
A conservative case for an assault weapons ban Light Fellowship Hall 15 12-22-2012 11:21 AM
A Conservative Case for Universal Health Care: Aquila Political Talk 0 11-13-2012 09:56 AM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome
- by Salome
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.