Cruxlux

Cruxlux definition
New here? Jump in... X
Click the links below any post to see top
Supports
,
Counterarguments
, and
Comments
to it.
Boost posts you think are good. This will increase their scores and help them move up. Boost
Click
Add Response
beneath any post to join the debate on it yourself and shed more light.
Spread the word and invite friends or groups—to get support, to challenge and convince, or just to share.
Live: Conversation about this topic
Invite someone to this debate by username, group, or email address:
Assertion:
Preventing insurers from discriminating on the basis of prior illness unlinks cost and risk and will either drive insurers from the market or raise costs for everyone.

In response to: We need greater governmental control of health care.
Cruxes...
Insufficient information so far. Help explore this issue by adding responses (either in support or against).

Points

10
Boost
Report

Feb 20 2008

Default Avatar

brendanm98

Communities

Swords Crossed avatar

Sites

www.google.com www.swordscrossed.org www.espn.com

Counterargument 1
Boost
Magnify Report
7

Feb 20

2008

nobody3 avatar nobody3

Default Avatar www.wikipedia.org www.digg.com
Expand
If insurers don't leave the market, that means they can get by with less overhead and profit. If they do leave, that means this is an area for a government system, which is fine.

Supports (0) | Counterarguments (1) | Comments (0)
Counterarguments
Boost
Magnify Report
6

Feb 20

2008

Default Avatar brendanm98

Swords Crossed avatar www.google.com www.swordscrossed.org
Point
Seems circular -- government meddling cuts profits, so company leaves, so it's an area for a government system? Shouldn't the cost comparison be to an actual free market?

Supports (0) | Counterarguments (1) | Comments (0)
Counterargument 2
Boost
Magnify Report
4

Feb 28

2008

Default Avatar fbwrzb3eh

www.facebook.com
Expand
Consider healthcare a seller's market. Healthcare providers already make a killing(bad choice of words) A nat'l plan would bring it back to fair

Supports (0) | Counterarguments (0) | Comments (0)
Counterargument 3
Boost
Magnify Report
2

Feb 28

2008

Default Avatar fbwrzb3eh

www.facebook.com
Expand
Discriminating for prior illnesses only hurt those who are sick. It allows insurance companies to bank on the healthy and weed out the sick.

Supports (0) | Counterarguments (0) | Comments (0)
Representation

Represented Sites:

www.swordscrossed.org www.espn.com

Represented Communities:

Swords Crossed avatar
Challenged / Invited

Invite more people/groups using the field at the top of this page.

Share
Add this debate to your own site!
and/or
Del.icio.us Digg Share on Facebook Reddit Slashdot StumbleUpon
Context
1 level up:
We need greater governmental control of health care.
< We're here now:
Preventing insurers from discriminating on the basis of prior illness unlinks...
Recent Activity
Thanks for stopping by! Don't worry about ge... [converse]
Hey Brendan, I finally popped over to check ... [converse]
yes, the 2 have a lot of similarities [converse]
Thus insurers would offer more generous plan... [debate]
Insurers would have a gov't plan to compete ... [debate]
Consider healthcare a seller's market. Healt... [debate]

©Cruxlux, 2007-2008.

User posted content, except for source quoted material and Essays (i.e. text in the boxes marked "Essay"), are released under a Creative Commons Public Domain License. Essays are property of their authors. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are property of their respective owners. See Terms of service for full details.