"Obamacare"

acropolis · Aug 10, 2012

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:
I did NOT say I want them to suffer and die I said that I believe it should either be funded by DONATIONS OR LOCAL taxes and NOT by the federal (or state government) By the way why not just give people the OPTION to buy into it but INSTEAD of MAKING them pay a fine if they do not say look you will not get treatment if you choose not to have insurance. This way they can choose and if they choose to refuse it and suffer then that is THEIR business.

Charity isn't enough. If it was enough we wouldn't be having this conversation since everyone who needed care would be getting it. Instead there are people who cannot afford to get the preventative care that will keep them healthy. If you want to keep that care expensive then you effectively forcing them to suffer and die prematurely. You can't just demand that poor people get richer and pay for things you don't want to, real life doesn't work like that.

Why is your ideology more important than keeping people healthy?

dogs4thewin · Aug 10, 2012

acropolis said:
Charity isn't enough. If it was enough we wouldn't be having this conversation since everyone who needed care would be getting it. Instead there are people who cannot afford to get the preventative care that will keep them healthy. If you want to keep that care expensive then you effectively forcing them to suffer and die prematurely. You can't just demand that poor people get richer and pay for things you don't want to, real life doesn't work like that.

Why is your ideology more important than keeping people healthy?

Well then why is it that people did just fine in the 50s 60s and early 70s when that was how it was done donations. Of course, there was less they could do about things. People can also make the choice to pay and have nothing else, go to prison where yes they WILL receive treatment or yes they can CHOOSE to refuse it whether they can afford it or NOT. What do you tell me about those people who according to you choose to suffer and die, by on their own free will refusing to seek treatment. Even people who can't afford it that is really what they ARE doing. If they REALLY wanted treatment most places (even when they are NOT required to will work with them). For example, my sister is having trouble with her teeth, now it is NOT fatal just more app to get tooth decay, yet the people at the office said they WOULD work with us after we explained that we are still paying Oncology bills.

SPB1987 · Aug 10, 2012

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:
Well then why is it that people did just fine in the 50s 60s and early 70s when that was how it was done donations. Of course, there was less they could do about things. People can also make the choice to pay and have nothing else, go to prison where yes they WILL receive treatment or yes they can CHOOSE to refuse it whether they can afford it or NOT. What do you tell me about those people who according to you choose to suffer and die, by on their own free will refusing to seek treatment. Even people who can't afford it that is really what they ARE doing. If they REALLY wanted treatment most places (even when they are NOT required to will work with them). For example, my sister is having trouble with her teeth, now it is NOT fatal just more app to get tooth decay, yet the people at the office said they WOULD work with us after we explained that we are still paying Oncology bills.

Simply put, healthcare is more expensive and complex today than it was in the 1950s. I found a link that talks about how simple healthcare was back then in comparison to today. Health insurance is becoming increasingly more expensive and increasingly covering less. Check this site out:
1950s Health - Health Care in the 1950s

dogs4thewin · Aug 10, 2012

SPB1987 said:
Simply put, healthcare is more expensive and complex today than it was in the 1950s. I found a link that talks about how simple healthcare was back then in comparison to today. Health insurance is becoming increasingly more expensive and increasingly covering less. Check this site out:
1950s Health - Health Care in the 1950s

Well of course it was simpler they could do less about less. For example, cancer, whereas today less than half of all cancer patients will die from it back then it was all but a death sentence.

SPB1987 · Aug 10, 2012

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:
Well of course it was simpler they could do less about less. For example, cancer, whereas today less than half of all cancer patients will die from it back then it was all but a death sentence.

Well you were asking why people did okay back then with charity. I am simply stating that health insurance costs more today than it did back then. Not to mention the individuals who go receive treatment at a ER but have no insurance and no ability to pay in the first place. Where do you think hospitals pass those costs off?

doubtingmerle · Aug 10, 2012

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:
By the way why not just give people the OPTION to buy into it but INSTEAD of MAKING them pay a fine if they do not say look you will not get treatment if you choose not to have insurance. This way they can choose and if they choose to refuse it and suffer then that is THEIR business.

OK, so if I have insurance and go out for a walk without carrying my insurance card and fall and knock myself unconscious, do the medics just leave me there to die? Is that what you would want the medical people to do? Would I get no coverage since I had no proof of insurance at the scene?

But if medical people were required to treat me even though they have no proof of insurance, then what can possibly be wrong with asking everybody who can to contribute to help pay for this coverage?

doubtingmerle · Aug 10, 2012

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:
Well then why is it that people did just fine in the 50s 60s and early 70s when that was how it was done donations.

Some people did just fine on donations, but others died for lack of coverage.

That is why Nixon passed a law saying hospitals had to treat people in emergencies. If charity always resolved the bills, there would have been no need for that law. But charity didn't always resolve it.

And in the 50's there were far less uninsured then there are today. In those days manufacturing and unions were strong, and almost anybody could get a good job with insurance. That is not true today.

And no, things are not going just fine. 40,000 people die each year because they are not covered. In my view, that is not just fine.

40,000 people die each year because they do not have health insurance. Is that just fine with you?

Lion Hearted Man · Aug 10, 2012

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:
Well then why is it that people did just fine in the 50s 60s and early 70s when that was how it was done donations. Of course, there was less they could do about things. People can also make the choice to pay and have nothing else, go to prison where yes they WILL receive treatment or yes they can CHOOSE to refuse it whether they can afford it or NOT. What do you tell me about those people who according to you choose to suffer and die, by on their own free will refusing to seek treatment. Even people who can't afford it that is really what they ARE doing. If they REALLY wanted treatment most places (even when they are NOT required to will work with them). For example, my sister is having trouble with her teeth, now it is NOT fatal just more app to get tooth decay, yet the people at the office said they WOULD work with us after we explained that we are still paying Oncology bills.

Did everyone with a stroke get an MRI in the 50s-70s? Or everyone who hit their head get a CT? Or everyone with a suspected heart attack get an echocardiogram and/or cardiac catheterization? Or everyone with gastrointestinal issues get a full GI work-up including endoscopy and imaging? Did anyone get these increasingly expensive designer drugs?

No.

Medicine is far more expensive now than it ever was, because we have way better technology when it comes to standard of care.

You must realize that anybody who walks into the ER these gets all of these things, and someone has to pay for it. Charity can't take care of it.

doubtingmerle · Aug 11, 2012

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:
or a person could just refuse treatment if they cannot afford it. If I understand full well that I may get really sick and not have the money to pay then why should it matter that you have to pay? because you can't pay for something that the person doesn't get.

So that is your answer to the impoverished person who is living in chronic pain, and has been refused by insurance companies because of his pre-existing condition? Do you simply suggest that this person--a person with feelings just like you and I--take a deep breath and learn to live with the agonizing pain, even though there is a cure he cannot afford that would make it all better? Must he wrestle all night in pain, hoping that he somehow gets enough sleep to do his job in the morning, washing dishes at the restaurant where the rich people in his neighborhood eat? Should those rich people have no obligation to help this person in need who so diligently serves them every day? What kind of world do you want to live in?

If a dog shows up at city hall with a deep wound, we would have mercy on that dog. Why oh why would it be wrong for the government to say that we will take steps to see that he--and all people like him--will have a guarantee that such health issues will be addressed?

dogs4thewin · Aug 11, 2012

doubtingmerle said:
So that is your answer to the impoverished person who is living in chronic pain, and has been refused by insurance companies because of his pre-existing condition? Do you simply suggest that this person--a person with feelings just like you and I--take a deep breath and learn to live with the agonizing pain, even though there is a cure he cannot afford that would make it all better? Must he wrestle all night in pain, hoping that he somehow gets enough sleep to do his job in the morning, washing dishes at the restaurant where the rich people in his neighborhood eat? Should those rich people have no obligation to help this person in need who so diligently serves them every day? What kind of world do you want to live in?

If a dog shows up at city hall with a deep wound, we would have mercy on that dog. Why oh why would it be wrong for the government to say that we will take steps to see that he--and all people like him--will have a guarantee that such health issues will be addressed?

They can either refuse it OR do their best to pay for what they can. Another example, I know a man with seizures well his medications were not working he have to have the NAME brand of that particular medication so you know what he does calls the drug company NOT the insurance company but the DRUG company and arranges to pay (more granted but not NEAR what he would have paid without the call) to purchase the name brand each month. I would help people in that situation if I could, however I do NOT see it as the government's place to have everyone have insurance or have a fine.
As for what you mentioned earlier no treat you, but if someone comes in wanting preventive care or someone is already sick and needing care then no insurance fork it out. Why? because if I understand that is the risk I take and I CHOOSE not to be insured I should not get to decide when something happens I want the treatment everyone gets who DOES pay into the system fro protection. As for pre-existing adults know why insurance is not required to treat them fair or not common sense says it makes no money sense. It is not fair. and maybe not even ethical but insurance is a BUSINESS. If you want to change that with health care do you want to change that with life insurance (people get older you know) Car/truck insurance for those with accidents and/or tickets on their record Home insurance for those who live in certain areas that say have more fires, flood insurance should cost the same if you live in a flood prone area or not on and on with various insurances?

Lion Hearted Man · Aug 11, 2012

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:
They can either refuse it OR do their best to pay for what they can.

No no no no no. People can refuse it, yes, but they shouldn't have to refuse it because they have no way to pay for it.

That's the whole point of this discussion. Let me repeat: people can refuse, yes. But they shouldn't have to refuse simply because they cannot pay for it.

iluvatar5150 · Aug 11, 2012

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:
Why? because if I understand that is the risk I take and I CHOOSE not to be insured I should not get to decide when something happens I want the treatment everyone gets who DOES pay into the system fro protection.

However, that's not how the world works, nor is it really how it ought to work.

Let's say you're diabetic and you can't afford treatments (insulin, etc) or you're just irresponsible and you choose not to buy them.

Time goes by and now your leg is rotting off an needs to be amputated, what happens?

You go to the hospital.

What does the rest of society do? Do they tell you, "Sorry, but you blew all of your money on ice cream and twinkies instead of your medicine. Because of that, we're not going to treat you and are, instead, going to let you sit here and die."

That's what happens under your plan. Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

-Dan.

dogs4thewin · Aug 11, 2012

iluvatar5150 said:
However, that's not how the world works, nor is it really how it ought to work.

Let's say you're diabetic and you can't afford treatments (insulin, etc) or you're just irresponsible and you choose not to buy them.

Time goes by and now your leg is rotting off an needs to be amputated, what happens?

You go to the hospital.

What does the rest of society do? Do they tell you, "Sorry, but you blew all of your money on ice cream and twinkies instead of your medicine. Because of that, we're not going to treat you and are, instead, going to let you sit here and die."

That's what happens under your plan. Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

-Dan.

If you understand the results then why not?n Loin hearted why not just either do that or go to prison where they will get treated. I am for people receiving health care but also for people NOT abusing offered services These by the way include not just health care, but food stamps section 8/ government housing, other wel-fare. Even the disability check (which I MYSELF are currently on. The ONLY people who should receive ANY government assistance are those on REGULAR social security (which one would receive every month AFTER and ONLY after reaching his/or her 65th birthday and yes that could include medicare.

Lion Hearted Man · Aug 11, 2012

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:
If you understand the results then why not?

How could a patient be truly informed about the potential consequences of their actions if they don't have a doctor to discuss them with?

I am shocked at how little you seem to value human life. You do realize that every complication of diabetes is completely preventable (including kidney failure, blindness, limb amputations, loss of bladder control, accelerated atherosclerosis, etc) if you keep the glucose level normal? It is a no-brainer. Patients aren't doctors. They need a doctor to inform them about these things so they can improve their health and their lives.

Lion Hearted Man · Aug 11, 2012

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:
Loin hearted why not just either do that or go to prison where they will get treated. I am for people receiving health care but also for people NOT abusing offered services

1) The fact that you suggest people go to prison to receive health care is one of the most absurd things I've seen on this forum. I have no idea why you think that is a good idea.

2) There is no way that someone can abuse preventive services. There are screening schedules, and doctors typically adhere to them. It's not like someone will barge into a doctors office and demand a prostate exam, and that somehow that action would drain the system. Give me a break.

The true "abuse" of the system is when uninsured people come to the ER with end-stage chronic disease and the hospital ends up footing the bill for expensive life-saving treatments. Your solution is to let these patients die. My solution is to prevent them from having to be put in this situation.

dogs4thewin · Aug 11, 2012

Lion Hearted Man said:
How could a patient be truly informed about the potential consequences of their actions if they don't have a doctor to discuss them with?

I am shocked at how little you seem to value human life. You do realize that every complication of diabetes is completely preventable (including kidney failure, blindness, limb amputations, loss of bladder control, accelerated atherosclerosis, etc) if you keep the glucose level normal? It is a no-brainer. Patients aren't doctors. They need a doctor to inform them about these things so they can improve their health and their lives.

yes, as a matter of a fact I DO realize that since my father's mother died of diabetes LESS than six months ago. I understand I value human life trouble is too many people abuse government services and lie to receive them. This is why, I propose having EVERYTHING (wel-fare wise) by run by donations and LOCAL government taxes say within a city or country and NOT by federal or state governments. No, here is the type of abuse I am talking about NOT screenings but people wanting to go INTO offices to check their blood pressure. People who do THAT type thing NOT those with screenings and other such preventive care. I am talking the REALLY petty things that frankly can be treated at home a cold, blood pressure, weighing

Lion Hearted Man · Aug 11, 2012

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:
yes, as a matter of a fact I DO realize that since my father's mother died of diabetes LESS than six months ago. I understand I value human life trouble is too many people abuse government services and lie to receive them. This is why, I propose having EVERYTHING (wel-fare wise) by run by donations and LOCAL government taxes say within a city or country and NOT by federal or state governments.

Please explain how people can abuse fasting glucose measurements and rectal exams.

dogs4thewin · Aug 11, 2012

Lion Hearted Man said:
Please explain how people can abuse fasting glucose measurements and rectal exams.

um when they get them EVERY week go into an urgert care place just to have those little things done on a WEEKLY or DAILY basis also like blood pressure and other such things. We have already discussed the fact that when there was less that COULD be done people tended to go to the doctor less. Why because they had to pay for it.

Lion Hearted Man · Aug 11, 2012

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:
um when they get them EVERY week go into an urgert care place just to have those little things done on a WEEKLY or DAILY basis also like blood pressure and other such things. We have already discussed the fact that when there was less that COULD be done people tended to go to the doctor less. Why because they had to pay for it.

You're telling me that uninsured people burst into ERs and demand to get their fasting blood sugar taken? To what final goal?

Sorry All or Nothing, but it's clear you don't understand how medicine works. This is a counter-productive discussion. I cannot seem get any of my points through to you.

dogs4thewin · Aug 11, 2012

Lion Hearted Man said:
You're telling me that uninsured people burst into ERs and demand to get their fasting blood sugar taken? To what final goal?

Sorry All or Nothing, but it's clear you don't understand how medicine works. This is a counter-productive discussion. I cannot seem get any of my points through to you.

no I am NOT talking about the ERs I am talking about like the places that you pay $5 for. Although, I do wish people would only go to the ERs for EMANGERIES this way they would not be near as jammed. Some of them, are actually FORCING people to start doing that. If you do not offer it at all you will not have it going too far and you will not have people once they get sick abusing it and staying alive when they know NOTHING can be done.

"Obamacare"

so rad

dog lover

Newbie

dog lover

Newbie

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Eternal Newbie

I'll think about it.

dog lover

Eternal Newbie

Well-Known Member

dog lover

Eternal Newbie

Eternal Newbie

dog lover

Eternal Newbie

dog lover

Eternal Newbie

dog lover

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency