Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='dmaul1114']It's just an ignorant, and irresponsible view to have. You may not use it. But what happens if you get in a car accident? Or come down with cancer? And suddenly have tens of thousands of dollars of medical expenses that were necessary to prevent your death?

There needs to be some kind of mandated coverage--or make ER care in life threatening cases completely socialized--so people aren't driving up all our premiums by not having any coverage nor any personal savings and having to leach on the system when something bad happens to them.

You may be willing to take the risk. But you're fucking the rest of us when something happens and you have no coverage to pay for required care.[/QUOTE]

And its pretty ignorant to think he shouldn't try and better himself as an employee and a member of society by going back to school just so he could stay at a job solely for Health Care.
 
[quote name='homeland']And its pretty ignorant to think he shouldn't try and better himself as an employee and a member of society by going back to school just so he could stay at a job solely for Health Care.[/QUOTE]

I didn't mean it that way. I'm a huge proponent of education being a professor myself.

I just meant the attitude he was phrasing it, and acting like it's a risk that only affects the individual when they decide to go without health insurance.

Universities tend to offer reasonably affordable insurance plans as well that cover just the emergency stuff--since they can go to the health center for a nominal fee ($10 usually) for minor issues.

Though I'd love to see the health care reform with a public option provide free coverage for emergency care for full time students not covered on parents plans or through an employer.
 
I just read a book by T.R. Reid. His description of the German healthcare (Bismarck Model) is pretty amazing. Basically there are tons of insurers and you get it through your work. However, if you lose your job the government pays your premium until you get back to work. Perhaps some aspect of that could work for the United States.
 
[quote name='saturninus']I just read a book by T.R. Reid. His description of the German healthcare (Bismarck Model) is pretty amazing. Basically there are tons of insurers and you get it through your work. However, if you lose your job the government pays your premium until you get back to work. Perhaps some aspect of that could work for the United States.[/QUOTE]

Why would you want tax dollars going towards private healthcare when a single payer option is cheaper? Seems like paying more just for the hell of it.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I remember at my local state school health insurance was $1,000 dollars a year.[/QUOTE]

Which isn't bad. I pay like $108 a month for medical/prescription, $26 for dental and $6 for vision.

But if you can't afford it, you can't afford it--more students should look into medicare if they're not a dependent under their parents. College students who aren't dependents are often eligible for that, food stamps etc. and don't know about it or are too embarrassed to apply.
 
Can anyone tell me what is wrong with denying someone treatment if that someone has made the conscious decision to not get health insurance?

I'm not talking about someone who honestly cannot afford it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Which isn't bad. I pay like $108 a month for medical/prescription, $26 for dental and $6 for vision.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I was mentioning it because $1,000 a year is quite reasonable.
 
[quote name='homeland']Why would you want tax dollars going towards private healthcare when a single payer option is cheaper? Seems like paying more just for the hell of it.[/QUOTE]

I am an advocate of single-payer. However, I don't think that's going to happen in the US anytime soon. Even this bs "public option" compromise is probably not going through either.
 
There will always be people that bitch about anything.

But, in reply on this subject. Just imagine if USPS didn't exist and UPS and FedEx got to make all the shipping decisions. We'd be fucked.
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']There will always be people that bitch about anything.

But, in reply on this subject. Just imagine if USPS didn't exist and UPS and FedEx got to make all the shipping decisions. We'd be fucked.[/QUOTE]

Really?

Now, if you had a package that you *had* to get delivered next business day. I'm talking life-or-death situation. Do you use UPS/FedEx or the USPS?

Keeping in mind that the USPS doesn't guarantee any of their timed services...
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Which isn't bad. I pay like $108 a month for medical/prescription, $26 for dental and $6 for vision.

But if you can't afford it, you can't afford it--more students should look into medicare if they're not a dependent under their parents. College students who aren't dependents are often eligible for that, food stamps etc. and don't know about it or are too embarrassed to apply.[/QUOTE]

medicaid you mean.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Really?

Now, if you had a package that you *had* to get delivered next business day. I'm talking life-or-death situation. Do you use UPS/FedEx or the USPS?

Keeping in mind that the USPS doesn't guarantee any of their timed services...[/QUOTE]

Yea, USPS may not be the "best". But, it does not allow UPS and FedEx to rule however they see fit. And helps keep the costs of shipping low. If we gave up all responsibility to UPS and FedEx to decide prices and let them compete, then we'd be seeing much higher prices.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Can anyone tell me what is wrong with denying someone treatment if that someone has made the conscious decision to not get health insurance?

I'm not talking about someone who honestly cannot afford it.[/QUOTE]

For the most part, I think it's just morally wrong. I don't know as a doctor if you could turn someone away knowing they would die if you didn't treat them.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Can anyone tell me what is wrong with denying someone treatment if that someone has made the conscious decision to not get health insurance?

I'm not talking about someone who honestly cannot afford it.[/QUOTE]

You shouldn't deny them anyway, you'd just charge them rather than insurance, but they likely wouldn't be able to afford that, which is why doctors would rather have an insurance company that will be able to pay them.

So do you not treat them because they chose not to have insurance and you're not sure they can afford the treatment otherwise?

It all comes down to affording it, the entire point of insurance is to make sure you can afford it since you likely won't just have the cash to pay for the expensive treatments when you need them.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Can anyone tell me what is wrong with denying someone treatment if that someone has made the conscious decision to not get health insurance?[/quote]

Tax money is spent trying to talk someone down who looks like they will be jumping off a building.

I'm not talking about someone who honestly cannot afford it.
Click to expand...

Any particular reason you care about this distinction now?
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']There will always be people that bitch about anything.

But, in reply on this subject. Just imagine if USPS didn't exist and UPS and FedEx got to make all the shipping decisions. We'd be fucked.[/QUOTE]

Well USPS is just contracted by the government right? So it's not the best analogy. Although I think USPS is much more affordable than UPS and FedEx.

[quote name='UncleBob']Really?

Now, if you had a package that you *had* to get delivered next business day. I'm talking life-or-death situation. Do you use UPS/FedEx or the USPS?

Keeping in mind that the USPS doesn't guarantee any of their timed services...[/QUOTE]

USPS is reliable for me and much cheaper than UPS or FedEx. Since they coexist people can choose. Right now there is no cheap reliable health care.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Can anyone tell me what is wrong with denying someone treatment if that someone has made the conscious decision to not get health insurance?

I'm not talking about someone who honestly cannot afford it.[/QUOTE]

1. A society isn't worth living it if it's going to kick people who go to the curb who show up at the ER with mortal woulds and illnesses that will kill them if they aren't treated.

2. What about people that are mortally wounded and bleeding out and show up at the hospital unconscious? Even if you are fine not treating people, ERs get people unconcious from accidents all the time and have to treat them right then and not take time to figure out if they have insurance etc.

But number 1 is more important.

Now if you're just talking people with a cold, flu, sinus infection, allergies, rash etc. etc. Then sure you can deny coverage. But who the fuck wants to live in a society where people care so little about others that they're fine with the ER being able to turn away people who are in urgent need of medical care to save their life because they don't have insurance and can't afford the out of pocket expenses. Or deny treatment to some one with cancer treatment that will save their life as it was caught early etc.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']We need choice and competition. We need the only choice to be Government care and different bureaucracy's within government competing.[/QUOTE]
If you're going to quote Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, you should attribute the quote.

Yes, I listen too.
 
"Can anyone tell me what is wrong with denying someone treatment if that someone has made the conscious decision to not get health insurance?" I'm not talking about someone who honestly cannot afford it.

Disease, panic, violence, and lower quality of life. You don't think someone is going to cut off their hand with a table saw, and say "aww man this smarts oh well I made the decision to not have health insurance gonna have to deal!" No they are going to freak the fuck out. And attempt to get help no matter what the costs whether it be stealing, robbing, forcing people to help at gun point whatever.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']you've been watching to many movies.[/QUOTE]


You don't think someone is going to panic and/or do something crazy if they find out the need cancer treatment immediately or need a hand reattached, and all the hospital can do is say "we are sorry you have no health insurance, so unless you have tens of thousands of dollars required to treat this there is nothing we can do for you."

When will people learn that Welfare and universal health care is protection for us all. If there is no safety net for basic things such as food, health care, and housing crime is going to up.

Yes it sucks to have to pay money for health insurance, but if you want a for profit health care system then you have to find a way to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars that people choose not to pay or simply can't. You can't have it both ways either universal health care and no forced insurance, or a for profit system with mandated health care.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's take this another way. Even though I disagree with the analogy (and did a great job debunking it!), since Mr. President seems to keep trying to use it, we'll go with this one...

Let's say I drive a vehicle, but I refuse to buy insurance. Then, let's say I'm driving along, sneeze, swerve off the road and hit a tree. I'm safe, but my car is totaled.

Should my car be fixed for free?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Let's take this another way.[/quote]

You have been comparing people to cars for months now Bob.

Let's say I drive a vehicle, but I refuse to buy insurance. Then, let's say I'm driving along, sneeze, swerve off the road and hit a tree. I'm safe, but my car is totaled. Should my car be fixed for free?
Click to expand...

The person driving the car should be provided medical assistance.
 
Msut - you're barely worth responding to anymore. The only time I've brought up the "car-person" comparison is in direct response to some idiot trying to say that mandated health insurance is the same as mandated auto insurance.

So, you're saying that if an individual refuses to buy automotive insurance, then totals out their car, that individual should be responsible for the damages to their vehicle?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Msut - you're barely worth responding to anymore.[/quote]

I don't consider many of your posts actual responses.

The only time I've brought up the "car-person" comparison is in direct response to some idiot trying to say that mandated health insurance is the same as mandated auto insurance.
Click to expand...

The concept of mandated insurance isn't exactly a novel idea in other countries or for drivers here. The comparison is perfectly valid which is something that was patiently explained to you more than once.

So, you're saying that if an individual refuses to buy automotive insurance, then totals out their car, that individual should be responsible for the damages to their vehicle?
Click to expand...

I am saying the person in the car accident should receive medical care.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']Let's take this another way. Even though I disagree with the analogy (and did a great job debunking it!), since Mr. President seems to keep trying to use it, we'll go with this one...

Let's say I drive a vehicle, but I refuse to buy insurance. Then, let's say I'm driving along, sneeze, swerve off the road and hit a tree. I'm safe, but my car is totaled.

Should my car be fixed for free?[/QUOTE]

Cars aren't people.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The concept of mandated insurance isn't exactly a novel idea in other countries or for drivers here. The comparison is perfectly valid in which is something that was patiently explained to you more than once.[/quote]

You can patiently explain how God created the Heavens and Earth until you're blue, but that doesn't make it true. Mandated Health Insurance is *not* the same as Mandated Automotive Insurance. As has been explained before, no individuals are required to have automotive insurance. They choose to do so.

I am saying the person in the car accident should receive medical care.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good. Except for the part where I didn't ask that at all.


Let's go a different direction. Individual is told smoking is bad, don't do it. Does it anyway. Gets Lung Cancer. Many expensive treatments later, the individual is still smoking. Gets throat cancer. Many more expensive treatments later, someone still survives. Continues smoking.

Now, let's say you, Must, are paying for all of the treatments out of your own pocket. The patient, however, is kind enough to pay for his own cigarettes. How many different times are you going to continue to pay for his various forms of cancer?

[quote name='saturninus']Cars aren't people.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Now, tell Obama that.
 
Hey I was that moron!

btw Cigarette smokers actually lower elderly health care costs due to lung cancer fatility rates and lower life expectancies thus less end of life and extended care.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Mandated Health Insurance is *not* the same as Mandated Automotive Insurance.[/quote]

Things don't have to be *exactly* the same for there to be a comparison Bob.

That's all well and good. Except for the part where I didn't ask that at all.
Click to expand...

Just trying to keep things on topic.

Let's go a different direction.
Click to expand...

Into a slightly different shade of irrelevancy or into a less disingenuous direction?

Now, let's say you, Must, are paying for all of the treatments out of your own pocket. The patient, however, is kind enough to pay for his own cigarettes.
Click to expand...

Why do I even bother to ask?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Things don't have to be *exactly* the same for there to be a comparison Bob.[/quote]

You're right. I mean, you *can* compare Apples to Rocks. But I'm not going to start eating rocks.

Just trying to keep things on topic.

Why do I even bother to ask?
Click to expand...

Why do you bother to reply without even making an attempt at answering.

What is wrong with asking individuals to take up some personal responsibility?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Why do you bother to reply without even making an attempt at answering.[/quote]

You intentionally ask silly questions etc. and then get upset when people refuse to play along.

For example.

Did I somehow miss a proposal where health care is going to be funded through a buddy system?
 
We'll all get to be everyone's buddies!

And who said I was upset? I can assure you, I actually find it more reassuring when you don't answer. See, it's better than you giving some BS answer like "Yes, I'll give away everything I own to possibly save one other life."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']We'll all get to be everyone's buddies![/quote]

Which is much different than any bundle of irrelevancies you think you were making a point with.

And who said I was upset?
Click to expand...

I did.
 
[quote name='gareman']Disease, panic, violence, and lower quality of life. You don't think someone is going to cut off their hand with a table saw, and say "aww man this smarts oh well I made the decision to not have health insurance gonna have to deal!" No they are going to freak the fuck out. And attempt to get help no matter what the costs whether it be stealing, robbing, forcing people to help at gun point whatever.[/QUOTE]

I think I have said it literally a thousand times, people with health insurance shouldn't be happy.

Considering the chances of bankruptcy and crap like this:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/019818.php

"In one of the more infamous examples, a woman in Texas was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer. Soon after, her insurer dropped her -- the company found an instance in which she visited a dermatologist for acne, and didn't tell the insurer about it. "Rescission" at work."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You're right. I mean, you *can* compare Apples to Rocks. But I'm not going to start eating rocks.
[/QUOTE]


You sure can compare apples to rocks if your making an analogy. EX: the genetically altered apple while it taste better--more sweet and has added caffeine the actual nutritional value is that of eating a rock.
 
Here's a completely unrealistic and radical idea , how about instead of trying to make affordable and effective health insurance system , we make it so that medical treatment isn't so fucking expensive in the first place?

I mean that would solve all the problems of this mess. If you choose to have insurance and get sick/injured , then the insurance covers it , if you choose not to have insurance (or can't get any) then if you get sick/injured it wouldn't cost so much that you'd have to spend your life savings to cover it (or file for bankruptcy).

I mean , I know it's never going to happen , but it seems like a much simplier solution that everyone could agree on.
 
Fact of the matter for me is that any decent human being who cares about more than themselves and their loved ones can get behind a system of health care for everyone paid for by everyone, where no one is denied treatment they truly need to survive or have a decent quality of life and no one is going bankrupt for medical reasons.

And unfortunately we have no proposals getting at that as people are so afraid of true universal health care despite it working in other countries. Sure they may have to wait longer for elective care, but that seems a fair trade off for lower costs and everyone being covered. I can wait to get an aching shoulder looked at if it means all urgent cases are being treated quickly and everyone has coverage and no one's going bankrupt for medical reasons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='StarKnightX']Here's a completely unrealistic and radical idea , how about instead of trying to make affordable and effective health insurance system , we make it so that medical treatment isn't so fucking expensive in the first place?

I mean that would solve all the problems of this mess. If you choose to have insurance and get sick/injured , then the insurance covers it , if you choose not to have insurance (or can't get any) then if you get sick/injured it wouldn't cost so much that you'd have to spend your life savings to cover it (or file for bankruptcy).

I mean , I know it's never going to happen , but it seems like a much simplier solution that everyone could agree on.[/QUOTE]
Because creating middle men that functionally do nothing but skim a percentage is the American way of life. If you're suggesting that HMOs don't deserve the 15% operating profit increase every year despite a inflation rate and increase in costs that doesn't get to even 5% a year, you're a goddamn communist that hates the free market.

And don't even think about connecting private insurance to rationing or you'll be burned at the stake by the Zombie Mises.
 
[quote name='StarKnightX']Here's a completely unrealistic and radical idea , how about instead of trying to make affordable and effective health insurance system , we make it so that medical treatment isn't so fucking expensive in the first place?

I mean that would solve all the problems of this mess. If you choose to have insurance and get sick/injured , then the insurance covers it , if you choose not to have insurance (or can't get any) then if you get sick/injured it wouldn't cost so much that you'd have to spend your life savings to cover it (or file for bankruptcy).

I mean , I know it's never going to happen , but it seems like a much simplier solution that everyone could agree on.[/QUOTE]

Those are good points. My uncle use to be an exec in a medical equipment supply company. He was always lamenting on how expensive that equipment is to maintain. Because if a device fails, and someone dies, everyone from the hospital to the manufacturer of the parts for the devices gets their asses sued into oblivion.

In another country, let's take Ecuador as an example, you have the same devices and same equipment, for the most part, and you'll get pretty much the same quality of care, but it's much much less expensive because if a heart monitor stops working and someone happens to die from it, good luck suing anyone.

But they don't have to pay $400 an hour to some technician to run diagnostics on their equipment twice a week.

I am not advocating zero accountability but the U.S. is clearly on the opposite end of the spectrum and that goes a long way to ensuring we have insane health care costs.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Those are good points. My uncle use to be an exec in a medical equipment supply company. He was always lamenting on how expensive that equipment is to maintain. Because if a device fails, and someone dies, everyone from the hospital to the manufacturer of the parts for the devices gets their asses sued into oblivion.

In another country, let's take Ecuador as an example, you have the same devices and same equipment, for the most part, and you'll get pretty much the same quality of care, but it's much much less expensive because if a heart monitor stops working and someone happens to die from it, good luck suing anyone.

But they don't have to pay $400 an hour to some technician to run diagnostics on their equipment twice a week.

I am not advocating zero accountability but the U.S. is clearly on the opposite end of the spectrum and that goes a long way to ensuring we have insane health care costs.[/QUOTE]

Whenever someone brings up malpractice or torte reform wil do nothing substantial in reducing health care cost. Its such a small amount it would be like putting a bandaid on an amputated arm and thinking its really going to help. Check out http://mdcarroll.com/2009/09/23/malpractice-reform-a-primer
 
This is one cluster F*. Seriously.

The problerm with your example dmaul:

And unfortunately we have no proposals getting at that as people are so afraid of true universal health care despite it working in other countries. Sure they may have to wait longer for elective care, but that seems a fair trade off for lower costs and everyone being covered. I can wait to get an aching shoulder looked at if it means all urgent cases are being treated quickly and everyone has coverage and no one's going bankrupt for medical reasons.
Click to expand...

People then would slack off on getting healthier... Its honestly McDonalds and all these other shortcut meals as we over extend ourselves and are on the run the entire time. So its a quick fast food dinner, or a microwave dinner, or some other crap... Its the weght issue.

The top four killers are almost all preventatible, yet its not happening.

The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior. The second insight, which is well understood by the providers of health care, is that 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity). Furthermore, 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable.

And giving people free prevention is not going to change that. Most group health plans now offer some degree of free preventative medicine (checkups, physicals, possibly mammograms, etc) Yet most are not used. So why opening that up to the entire country is going to somehow change americas lazy ass ways, is apparently out of my grasp.

It is prevention and lifestyle. Yet no one gives a crap.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Fact of the matter for me is that any decent human being who cares about more than themselves and their loved ones can get behind a system of health care for everyone paid for by everyone, where no one is denied treatment they truly need to survive or have a decent quality of life and no one is going bankrupt for medical reasons.

And unfortunately we have no proposals getting at that as people are so afraid of true universal health care despite it working in other countries. Sure they may have to wait longer for elective care, but that seems a fair trade off for lower costs and everyone being covered. I can wait to get an aching shoulder looked at if it means all urgent cases are being treated quickly and everyone has coverage and no one's going bankrupt for medical reasons.[/QUOTE]

On top of that if people are so concerned about waiting for elective care and other things, then they can purchase private insurers or hire private doctors. Much like how the police are a free service, but if one wants to spend money or needs extra protection they can hire or install private security.
 
[quote name='gareman']On top of that if people are so concerned about waiting for elective care and other things, then they can purchase private insurers or hire private doctors. Much like how the police are a free service, but if one wants to spend money or needs extra protection they can hire or install private security.[/QUOTE]

I'm glad you used that example, it's almost is good as Obama's car insurance example.

If I have enough money to afford my own private security, all they can do is try to prevent people from hurting me. That's it. Unfortunately that is not equal to the police and the authority the police have. They don't get to do all the things regular police can, and they don't have the authority to. They can't arrest anyone. They can't question someone. They can't use any type of force without far more accountability and liability, and their power in the court system matters much less than the police.

In other words, it's a waste of money for anyone except the extreme rich that have money to blow. And if you are a company that provides private security, you'd get some business, but you'd never be more than niche.

The same would likely correlate to national health care in a very real (scary?) way. So again, good example.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']
It is prevention and lifestyle. Yet no one gives a crap.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Any insurance reform that's not "free" should require yearly physicals or get hit with increased premiums.

And as I've said many time, I'd be 100% fine with people who didn't smoke, kept their bodyfat % in the health percentage for their ages, kept their blood pressure and cholesterol in the healthy ranges etc. earning discounts on their premiums--just like safe drivers who don't get tickets or accidents get breaks on car insurance.

No reason those of us taking the time to eat right and work out should pay the same as people who don't and lead unhealthy lives. I work anywhere from 50-80 hours a week depending on how much crap I have going on, and I still find time to eat pretty healthy most of the time and get to the gym 3 or 4 times a week. People are just lazy and/or cheap and make excuses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top