Forced to sign up for ObamaCare today :/

[LoAmmi]

IF you only have so much money or other resources for that matter at some point and I in a sense hate to use the word deserve but for lack of a better word you have to decide who deserves those resources. Is it the person that is dying at 75 and will not get much benefit OR the person that needs treatment at 25 and will be able to recover.

If I was forced to make a choice, the 25 year old obviously. My goal, however, would be to eliminate that as being a necessary choice.

 

[AMDG]

Yes, there DOES seem to be an Act against the corruption that monopolies bring--it's the RICO Act (What Is the RICO Act? (with pictures) )

 

[WarriorAngel]

I agree with you. It is a tragedy that people die due to treatable illnesses without getting that treatment.

Its horrible.

These women were viable - happy folk.
They liked to dance, laugh, go places, shop.
They really were lively happy women. 69 is not too old.

And suddenly - they are just a number. A number that doesnt deserve health care - because they are deemed 'too old?'

I mean i kinda figured we were on our way to the Logan's Run methodology - but its difficult to see it in fast forward.

 

[LoAmmi]

Its horrible.

These women were viable - happy folk.
They liked to dance, laugh, go places, shop.
They really were lively happy women. 69 is not too old.

And suddenly - they are just a number. A number that doesnt deserve health care - because they are deemed 'too old?'

I mean i kinda figured we were on our way to the Logan's Run methodology - but its difficult to see it in fast forward.

I would completely understand advising people not to go though with surgeries after they reach a certain age due to the risk factors involved. You know, a 100 year old man who wants a hip replacement probably faces more of a risk of death due to the surgery than he would get benefit from the hip. But I wouldn't deny people needed care that could save their lives.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If I was forced to make a choice, the 25 year old obviously. My goal, however, would be to eliminate that as being a necessary choice.

In a perfect and un-fallen world that is how it would be, but sense we live in no such world actually no matter what system you have you still will have limited resources and so you still have to make those same decisions. It is just that for people who are having to pay insurance that decision USUALLY comes somewhat easier than to the "freeloaders" largely depending on why of course they are freeloaders. Yes, life IS more important than money MOST of the time; however, there does come a point that people just have to be honest and say you know what it is not worth spending this money on me or my family member whomever it is simply because the resources could be better spent elsewhere. I DO support the idea of hospice which cost money, of course but not just to keep treating them.

 

[LoAmmi]

In a perfect and un-fallen world that is how it would be, but sense we live in no such world actually no matter what system you have you still will have limited resources and so you still have to make those same decisions. It is just that for people who are having to pay insurance that decision USUALLY comes somewhat easier than to the "freeloaders" largely depending on why of course they are freeloaders. Yes, life IS more important than money MOST of the time; however, there does come a point that people just have to be honest and say you know what it is not worth spending this money on me or my family member whomever it is simply because the resources could be better spent elsewhere. I DO support the idea of hospice which cost money, of course but not just to keep treating them.

I'm sorry, I refuse to just lay down and accept that things have to be a certain way. It isn't in my nature to do that. I can't comment on the whole fallen world thing.

Life is more precious than money every will be.

 

[Chrystal-J]

Anyone out there know about the "cost sharing" part of "Obamacare"? How does that work? (I'm not talking about the tax credits that pay the premiums.) I'm referring to the payments that pay co-pays and deductibles.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Health care is indeed a basic human right.

If some one shows up at your door having a heart attack and you choose to do nothing, you will be charged and convicted.

The Supreme Court even ruled in the case in California, where voters passed a law which prohibited hospitals from treating illegal immigrants. The hospitals themselves sued the state and the SCOTUS agreed that the Hospitals have the mandate to treat people for illnesses, regardless who they are.

The Catholic Church says that health care is as basic a right as food and water.


Jim

What?

When you say 'Do nothing'...you mean CPR or calling 911?

 

[LoAmmi]

If some one shows up at your door having a heart attack and you choose to do nothing, you will be charged and convicted.

This is not true in every state. I believe where I live I could simply shut the door and nothing would be done to me.

 

[Chrystal-J]

I found this site, it seems helpful:

ObamaCare Subsidies

 

[WarriorAngel]

I would completely understand advising people not to go though with surgeries after they reach a certain age due to the risk factors involved. You know, a 100 year old man who wants a hip replacement probably faces more of a risk of death due to the surgery than he would get benefit from the hip. But I wouldn't deny people needed care that could save their lives.

69 isnt an age of risk.... At this age is the usual and typical time when ppl need stints in their hearts. This is the age when many abnormalities may appear.

100 - i can see. Operations for most things would only cause them quicker death in some cases. The heart at that age is less likely to withstand the anethesia.

But 69 is young. And if we continue to ignore them - and let the government deem them too expensive to fix - we are going to face our own grim sufferings in the future.
We are all aging - and if this type of mindset continues - its only going to put the elderly in danger as useless beings in society - and more pro deathers will be hating on.

But - i would bet my eye teeth that when a politician gets to this age and needs care - no questions will be asked. The tax payers will foot the bill even after their retirement.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I found this site, it seems helpful:

ObamaCare Subsidies

I gave an up and coming state rep my advice on fixing the insurance mess.
I hope he passes on the wisdom to someone else if he doesnt get in office.

He is going to talk to ins companies and run the numbers.
He also wants to pick my brain in the future if he gets elected.

Nice guy. Down to earth vet. Hope he gets in - and hope he uses my info.

But this mess - is just plain ugly.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Snipped to portion addressed. Longer post above.



Really? Or would we just end up turning folks against each other? (Example--you don't deserved that help--you are too old or too young--you don't contribute to the community, or you ate salt, or sugar in your younger life, or you didn't go to the gym enough, etc.) Or will we end up rationing to save the scarce medical care for the elite?

Medical care is expensive (I know, remember that this summer I got the opportunity to sit in an ICU wondering about even how much THAT cost or how much they were charging for the donated blood, or etc. ) And surely you must know that competition (where one organization competes with another to bring in a lower cost while keeping quality of care) is the only way to make things cheaper. It's the same reason monopolies need to be destroyed--there's no competition and so the prices can just skyrocket because there are no "checks" against it. (Isn't there some sort of Act that does just that, for just that reason?)

And surely you must know that to simply to give less compensation than a service actually costs means that quality of care suffers and that many health professionals will simply refuse to accept the meager compensation (and so will not treat the poor). Force those in the medical profession to provide services anyway? There's a word for that. It's called slavery.

In a perfect world, there WOULD be no illness (but Adam and Eve messed that up for us) so the next best thing would be competition (to reduce prices) and charity (to show love of neighbor.)

Of course this doesn't help the OP. She needs inexpensive health care insurance.

So AMDG, who's paying for your husband's current care, if I may ask ?


Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What?

When you say 'Do nothing'...you mean CPR or calling 911?

If you don't call 911, and if you are certified in CPR and do nothing, you are breaking the law.


Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This is not true in every state. I believe where I live I could simply shut the door and nothing would be done to me.

Check again.

As far as I know, it's the law in every state, to at least call for emergency help.

If it were a child, you definitely would be prosecuted for doing nothing.

Jim

 

[dogs4thewin]

If you don't call 911, and if you are certified in CPR and do nothing, you are breaking the law.


Jim

Everywhere like some type of federal law? Not that I would do that.

 

[LoAmmi]

Check again.

As far as I know, it's the law in every state, to at least call for emergency help.

If it were a child, you definitely would be prosecuted for doing nothing.

Jim

I've seen such laws shot down in my state. I'm not aware of it passing.

 

[Boidae]

Check again.

As far as I know, it's the law in every state, to at least call for emergency help.

If it were a child, you definitely would be prosecuted for doing nothing.

Jim

As an EMT, I am under that law, when I am on duty for work, but in my personal time I am not required to ever stop if I see someone in distress.

That doesn't mean that I haven't done so, but that I am under no requirement to do so. It also depends on what I am doing when I see such an instance. If I am alone with no one else with me, I will do what I can. If I have family with me, such as my daughter, I will not stop since my family comes before any other.

I am talking of being out and about, not being in your home. If I am in my home, I have run out when I heard gun shots in my apartment complex before to see if anyone had been shot and was needing assistance while my wife called 911. Was actually yelled at by the 911 operator for doing so, but my want to save life out ruled my need for survival at that point.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I've seen such laws shot down in my state. I'm not aware of it passing.

I think it would be a pretty sad state to live in, if you could chose not to call for emergency help for some one needing it.


Jim

 

[LoAmmi]

I think it would be a pretty sad state to live in, if you could chose not to call for emergency help for some one needing it.

I'm pretty sure that's most states. Most states don't have the so-called "Good Samaritan" laws.