The Conservative Case for Single-Payer Health Care

[Fionn mac Cumh]

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?

[Disciple4life]

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.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

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.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Disciple4life

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Disciple4life]

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.