"Obamacare"

[ameriswede]

60 years is rushing it? We have been discussing this since World War II. Exactly how long do you want us to talk about it before we do something about the problem?

And this had been heavily debated more than a year after Obama started pressing for it until it finally became law. Exactly how long do you want people to haggle about these laws before we do something?

I agree the law is a mess. It is far too complicated, and doesn't do enough to protect those who are hurting. But it is a step in the right direction. Now let's talk about how we can improve and simplify it so it does what is needed.



OK, so you are saying the law is not strong enough? If the law cannot work in its current form without the mandates, and the mandate will not be enforced strong enough, then do we need stronger enforcement?



I see. And if the poor cannot afford bread, then we should let them eat cake?

Multiple unaffordable options won't help the poor.



Providing the poor with gold-plated plans is not the issue. Providing basic health coverage for all is the issue.

And what do you want to happen to those with serious pre-existing conditions and no insurance. Do you want to just let them die? Is that what you are saying?

You are sensible. So refreshing.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Well technically anyone with a terminal illness will not get any better. They may have days where they feel better or have more function but they are on a downwards slope leading to death.

Who are you to deny them perhaps some more time or happiness because they are racking up the bills? Not everyone thinks there is a afterlife, so they want to cherish every minute of this short life they can.

Well if they will get better or at least get to feeling a little better then OK, but people who are lying in bed with NO quality of life or KNOW they will die within say a month or the treatment remaining has a slim chance of working those are the ones I am talking about

 

[szechuan]

Well if they will get better or at least get to feeling a little better then OK, but people who are lying in bed with NO quality of life or KNOW they will die within say a month or the treatment remaining has a slim chance of working those are the ones I am talking about

So are you for death panels or against?

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Well if they will get better or at least get to feeling a little better then OK, but people who are lying in bed with NO quality of life or KNOW they will die within say a month or the treatment remaining has a slim chance of working those are the ones I am talking about

Who are you to determine the value or quality of someone's life? And even worse, you value it with MONEY!

If someone wants to live, they shouldn't have to die because you determined that there life has no value or quality.

 

[cricket0206]

I think Obamacare if good. I agree with it. Congress has tried to repeal it 33 times already. What a waste of time. They could be doing so many other things.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Who are you to determine the value or quality of someone's life? And even worse, you value it with MONEY!

If someone wants to live, they shouldn't have to die because you determined that there life has no value or quality.

I did not say I value money over people. However, people can usually tell when someone quality of life is zero. For example, my grandmother you know earlier in this thread the one that is recently deceased? My father and his brothers and sister made the choice for her to have a DNR order. Why? because they KNEW she was dying and in pain and the ONLY people that were benefiting from her being alive were us which is just not fair. Another example, been about 11 years ago now, but my grandmother (the same one) had a sister dying in pain. There was a medicine they could have given her that would have extended her life about 2 weeks. She was unable to make such choices (from what I understand) they chose to deny her the medication. Why? because again they knew that she was just in pain and keeping her alive was frankly selfish.

 

[Vylo]

I think Obamacare if good. I agree with it. Congress has tried to repeal it 33 times already. What a waste of time. They could be doing so many other things.

But coming up with real alternatives requires work, and campaigns are far more important.

 

[doubtingmerle]

For example, my grandmother you know earlier in this thread the one that is re cently deceased? My father and his brothers and sister made the choice for her to have a DNR order. Why? because they KNEW she was dying and in pain and the ONLY people that were benefiting from her being alive were us who is just not fair. Another example, been about 11 years ago now, but my grandmother (the same one) had a sister dying in pain. There was a medicine they could have given her that would have extended her life about 2 weeks. She was unable to make such choices (from what I understand) they chose to deny her the medication. Why? because again they knew that she was just in pain and keeping her alive was frankly selfish.

Let's address end of life care.

I think we agree that the terminally ill should have the right to die in peace if they so choose, without heroic efforts to keep them alive in a painful, helpless condition.

But if they choose that path, then I contend that they are still entitled to pain medications and other treatments to make their end of life as pleasant as possible in the circumstances. Nobody should be left to die in a gutter because he cannot pay for end of life care.

But do the poor have the right to demand that they be kept alive indefinitely in a vegetative state at taxpayer expense if they so choose? You contend that it would be selfish for them to do that, and a waste of money. I see your point. Others contend that no cost is too great to maintain life if that was the patient's desire. I tend to agree with you on this. A person can deteriorate to the point where it is no longer a wise use of taxpayer money to pay for the exotic treatments necessary to keep them alive. Where to draw that line is certainly a subject for debate.

Of course if they have the means, and ask to be maintained as a vegetable until their money runs out, their request should be honored.

But that is beyond the scope of what we are discussing here. Every American should be entitled to basic healthcare, regardless of ability to pay. That is not the same as saying they are entitled to live for years in intensive care in a vegetative state at taxpayer expense.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Let's address end of life care.

I think we agree that the terminally ill should have the right to die in peace if they so choose, without heroic efforts to keep them alive in a painful, helpless condition.

But if they choose that path, then I contend that they are still entitled to pain medications and other treatments to make their end of life as pleasant as possible in the circumstances. Nobody should be left to die in a gutter because he cannot pay for end of life care.

But do the poor have the right to demand that they be kept alive indefinitely in a vegetative state at taxpayer expense if they so choose? You contend that it would be selfish for them to do that, and a waste of money. I see your point. Others contend that no cost is too great to maintain life if that was the patient's desire. I tend to agree with you on this. A person can deteriorate to the point where it is no longer a wise use of taxpayer money to pay for the exotic treatments necessary to keep them alive. Where to draw that line is certainly a subject for debate.

Of course if they have the means, and ask to be maintained as a vegetable until their money runs out, their request should be honored.

But that is beyond the scope of what we are discussing here. Every American should be entitled to basic healthcare, regardless of ability to pay. That is not the same as saying they are entitled to live for years in intensive care in a vegetative state at taxpayer expense.

but you need to define basic. REALLY basic care is a yearly check-up and teeth cleaning every six months. Which if you get it on payments is fairly cheap anyway, as opposed to going under the knife and cancer treatments ECT

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

but you need to define basic. REALLY basic care is a yearly check-up and teeth cleaning every six months. Which if you get it on payments is fairly cheap anyway, as opposed to going under the knife and cancer treatments ECT

Who are you to decide what "basic" care is? There's a lot more to it than a check-ups and teeth cleanings. There are also pap smears, mammography, colonoscopies, etc which become routine. Or how about the very expensive imaging tests that are standard of care for the work up of common conditions?

 

[doubtingmerle]

but you need to define basic. REALLY basic care is a yearly check-up and teeth cleaning every six months. Which if you get it on payments is fairly cheap anyway, as opposed to going under the knife and cancer treatments ECT

No, I do not mean simply getting a yearly checkup and teeth cleaning. I mean getting the essential health care that people need. Exactly what should be covered is subject to debate, and good people can differ on the details.

 

[dogs4thewin]

No, I do not mean simply getting a yearly checkup and teeth cleaning. I mean getting the essential health care that people need. Exactly what should be covered is subject to debate, and good people can differ on the details.

Well you have to draw a line SOMEWHERE. Basic can be cleaning/check-ups or annual tests or going under the knife/cancer treatments ECT so what is it?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Well you have to draw a line SOMEWHERE. Basic can be cleaning/check-ups or annual tests or going under the knife/cancer treatments ECT so what is it?

Are you suggesting that people pick between primary care OR catastrophic care?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Are you suggesting that people pick between primary care OR catastrophic care?

no, I am saying that it is unfair for people to stay alive on tax payer money when there is nothing that can be done for them. You have to draw that line SOMEWHERE

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

no, I am saying that it is unfair for people to stay alive on tax payer money when there is nothing that can be done for them. You have to draw that line SOMEWHERE

You mentioned "going under the knife" and "cancer treatments". I fail to see how that directly relates to keeping people "alive on tax payer money". Surgery and oncology are broad fields with varying levels of patient risk and survival.

This is the way insurance works: we all pitch in so when one of us gets sick, it can be paid for. Insurance would fall apart if we all got cancer at the same time, but only some of us do at any given time. The system needs us healthy people to pay into it now to support the sick, and when we're sick, healthy people will support us.

No one except the exceptionally wealthy can afford the standard of care of modern medicine out of pocket, especially when it comes to cancer.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well you have to draw a line SOMEWHERE. Basic can be cleaning/check-ups or annual tests or going under the knife/cancer treatments ECT so what is it?

Basic healthcare certainly includes surgeries and normal cancer treatment where the procedure has a good chance of significantly extending a person's healthy life. I think everybody should be covered for such things.

Things like optional cosmetic surgery or extended high-tech maintaining of a person in a vegetative state can be over the line, and would not necessarily need to be covered by the taxpayer or insurance.

Expensive cancer treatment that would at best extend life only a few weeks gets into a gray area, where it can be certainly debated how far the taxpayer should be asked to contribute. Where to draw that line is certainly a good topic for future debate.

I cannot understand why you keep trying to draw me into a detailed point by point discussion of exactly where the line should be drawn. That goes beyond the scope of this thread. I am not here to argue point by point every single paragraph of the Affordable Care Act.

 

[dogs4thewin]

So can we make another thread about it, then?

 

[doubtingmerle]

So can we make another thread about it, then?

Certainly, you can make a thread about anything you want.

 

[John Lee Pettimore III]

Who are you to decide what "basic" care is? There's a lot more to it than a check-ups and teeth cleanings. There are also pap smears, mammography, colonoscopies, etc which become routine. Or how about the very expensive imaging tests that are standard of care for the work up of common conditions?

In that case, who are you to decide what basic care is?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

In that case, who are you to decide what basic care is?

Well in less than a couple years I'll be a doctor

But I'm not pretending I know or that I should decide. "Basic care" needs to be evidence-based, and it needs to be based on a medical consensus. Some screening tests are expensive, but if they prevent disease they are worth it.