"Obamacare"

[Lion Hearted Man]

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.

What, pray tell, is an EMANGERY?

I'll try once more: uninsured people often go to the ER because they have a devastating complication of a, up until that point, silent chronic condition such as hypertension, atherosclerosis, or diabetes. These immediate flare-ups that bring them to the ER are often treatable, but the patient won't have the same quality of life afterwards. A diabetic may have their foot amputated. An atherosclerosis patient may have a heart attack. Whatever. End result: the ER docs save their lives but unfortunately the patient is very far in their chronic disease. (The patient is not, however, "terminal". They still have a great shot at a decent living after surviving this acute situation.)

This could have been prevented. If this uninsured patient was in fact insured, they'd have a primary care doctor they would meet with who would screen them routinely and appropriately. They would get the diabetes and blood pressure under control. They'd address lifestyle issues. It is highly likely that they'd prevent the gangrenous foot, the aortic dissection, or the heart attack. This saves money in the long-term, and increases quality of life.

Does that make sense? This is why preventive care is important.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Preventive care also tends to quite a bit cheaper than the other, as well even WITHOUT insurance.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

So that is why you don't like Obamacare? You are afraid people will abuse it by getting free rectal exams daily?

What kind of world do you live in, anyway?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Preventive care also tends to quite a bit cheaper than the other, as well even WITHOUT insurance.

The only way to get comprehensive preventive care is to be insured and have a doctor with whom you develop a relationship with.

Pap smears are done annually. Colonoscopies are done every few years after you turn 50. Mammography has complicated screening guidelines. Blood pressure should be taken routinely. And this isn't even bringing up the medications needed to keep chronic conditions under control.

Without a primary care doctor, there is no one advocating for the health of the patient.

 

[dogs4thewin]

but can't you still have one if you are uninsured? I mean doctors do not say I will ONLY treat you if you have insurance. Actually in many cases they only accept certain ones. In MANY cases they do not accept medicade and/or medicare since they do not like dealing with the GOVERNMENT.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

but can't you still have one if you are uninsured? I mean doctors do not say I will ONLY treat you if you have insurance. Actually in many cases they only accept certain ones. In MANY cases they do not accept medicade and/or medicare since they do not like dealing with the GOVERNMENT.

How can an uninsured person afford a doctor? If you can't afford insurance you can't afford medical bills. There are safety net places, thank goodness, but not everyone has access to them.

 

[dogs4thewin]

How can an uninsured person afford a doctor? If you can't afford insurance you can't afford medical bills. There are safety net places, thank goodness, but not everyone has access to them.

safety nets?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

safety nets?

I only truly know my region well, and we have a county hospital that serves the poor and un/underinsured. It definitely isn't enough, but it's something. I'm not sure how it all works though (I'm not a health policy person and I'm not going to be a primary care doctor either, but I learned the general principles in my first two years of med school).

 

[dogs4thewin]

Is there a reason that it is not enough, since clearly it is not much of a safety net if it doesn't really work?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Is there a reason that it is not enough, since clearly it is not much of a safety net if it doesn't really work?

Who said it "doesn't really work"? It's a great hospital system, but it can't carry the burden of providing care to every un/underinsured person in a major US city.

 

[iluvatar5150]

If you understand the results then why not?

A couple reasons:

1.) The biggest one is that it's just a terrible thing to do - watching someone die when you could save them, merely to make a point or to exact judgment... What a twisted way to view the world.

2.) Even if they claimed to have understood the consequences, how can you be sure they actually did? People have all sorts of strange ways to confirm what they want to believe in spite of evidence - just look at the 9/11 and birther conspiracies that won't die.

n Loin hearted why not just either do that or go to prison where they will get treated.

Ok, so we can't treat them in a hospital on the public dime, but we can treat them in a prison on the public dime?

That makes no sense.

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.

That is absolutely unfeasible. The reason it is unfeasible is because the poor areas couldn't afford to cover everything themselves. As much as you conservatives like railing on us supposedly rich, out-of-touch big-city liberals, we're the ones who actually foot the bill for a good chunk of the country. If you let a place like Alabama or Mississippi try to fend for itself, it'd get even worse than it is now. On a smaller scale, poorer districts would have even more trouble keeping up with their wealthy neighbors.

-Dan.

 

[TScott]

Who said it "doesn't really work"? It's a great hospital system, but it can't carry the burden of providing care to every un/underinsured person in a major US city.

it seems like you are wasting your time with this one. I think you have articulated the issue accurately, but some people don't want to know how it really is.

 

[dogs4thewin]

A couple reasons:

1.) The biggest one is that it's just a terrible thing to do - watching someone die when you could save them, merely to make a point or to exact judgment... What a twisted way to view the world.

2.) Even if they claimed to have understood the consequences, how can you be sure they actually did? People have all sorts of strange ways to confirm what they want to believe in spite of evidence - just look at the 9/11 and birther conspiracies that won't die.





Ok, so we can't treat them in a hospital on the public dime, but we can treat them in a prison on the public dime?

That makes no sense.



That is absolutely unfeasible. The reason it is unfeasible is because the poor areas couldn't afford to cover everything themselves. As much as you conservatives like railing on us supposedly rich, out-of-touch big-city liberals, we're the ones who actually foot the bill for a good chunk of the country. If you let a place like Alabama or Mississippi try to fend for itself, it'd get even worse than it is now. On a smaller scale, poorer districts would have even more trouble keeping up with their wealthy neighbors.

-Dan.

The reason I propose this is that that way you know who really needs help. Same applies with food stamps and other programs when everybody knows everybody they know who has fallen on hard times and who just flat out did not manage their money right. Loin Hearted that is what I meant that it does not cover everyone.

 

[MarkSB]

A little late to the conversation, but one of the things that really gets me about Obamacare is the attitudes and lifestyles of SOME of the people who support it. It just seems like they are more than willing to take away the rights of others for their own benefit.

I think Grizzly made a good point about 10 pages back - I don't view free healthcare as a right and I don't see how people really can. But I would be more than happy to sign an insurance waiver to ensure that if I got sick the costs would not be assumed by the public.

There are better ways to reduce health care costs that do not include an assault on personal liberty and an overreach of the federal government's power.

 

[doubtingmerle]

A little late to the conversation, but one of the things that really gets me about Obamacare is the attitudes and lifestyles of SOME of the people who support it. It just seems like they are more than willing to take away the rights of others for their own benefit.

Can you give me the name, please, of one person who uses Obamacare to willingly take away people's rights for his own benefit? How is this person benefiting from the fact that others are losing their rights?

I think Grizzly made a good point about 10 pages back - I don't view free healthcare as a right and I don't see how people really can.

Imagine that! Some people think others should not be left to die in pain if they get sick without insurance. Imagine that people actually have those kinds of feeling for the suffering poor around them!

Oh wait. I also think the suffering poor have the right to be treated humanely when sick.

But I would be more than happy to sign an insurance waiver to ensure that if I got sick the costs would not be assumed by the public.

Got it. The public shouldn't pay for your health.

So if you had no insurance or ability to pay, and if we find you in a horrible accident, then would there be a prominent sign posted on your person saying "Don't cut this one out of the car. Leave him here and let him die. He cannot afford your help, and does not want it"?

There are better ways to reduce health care costs that do not include an assault on personal liberty and an overreach of the federal government's power.

Obamacare is primarily about providing healthcare to those who cannot afford it and to those who are being denied coverage by insurance. Cutting costs is secondary to that primary objective.

Do you have a better way of seeing that the sick and poor get coverage? If so, please share that plan with us.

 

[MarkSB]

Can you give me the name, please, of one person who uses Obamacare to willingly take away people's rights for his own benefit? How is this person benefiting from the fact that others are losing their rights?

Imagine that! Some people think others should not be left to die in pain if they get sick without insurance. Imagine that people actually have those kinds of feeling for the suffering poor around them!

Oh wait. I also think the suffering poor have the right to be treated humanely when sick.


Got it. The public shouldn't pay for your health.

So if you had no insurance or ability to pay, and if we find you in a horrible accident, then would there be a prominent sign posted on your person saying "Don't cut this one out of the car. Leave him here and let him die. He cannot afford your help, and does not want it"?

Obamacare is primarily about providing healthcare to those who cannot afford it and to those who are being denied coverage by insurance. Cutting costs is secondary to that primary objective.

Do you have a better way of seeing that the sick and poor get coverage? If so, please share that plan with us.

That post makes so many assumptions I don't think it even warrants a response. But, to respond to a few of your points:

So if you had no insurance or ability to pay, and if we find you in a horrible accident, then would there be a prominent sign posted on your person saying "Don't cut this one out of the car. Leave him here and let him die. He cannot afford your help, and does not want it"?

1. Firefighters often do the extraction, and this service is paid for by state and local taxes.
2. Laws vary from state to state, but in an auto accident other than being paid by your health insurance medical expenses can also be paid by your auto insurance or by the person who was at fault. In my state, if you left me to die you would have to first assume I was at fault. (Since I do not carry PIP and am not required to by law.)
3. Nowhere did I say that emergency medical treatment should be denied, only that I would assume the cost.

Can you give me the name, please, of one person who uses Obamacare to willingly take away people's rights for his own benefit? How is this person benefiting from the fact that others are losing their rights?

I'll ignore the first question because its rather foolish. But without going into too much detail I've met a few women who seem to think that access to "free" birth control is a right. So instead of adjusting their budgets to account for the cost, they put the burden upon the public.

I am a single man and I see no reason why I should pay for someone else's birth control simply because they manage their money poorly and refuse to adjust their spending habits. Not to mention that plan B and other forms of birth control which I consider to be immoral will no doubt also be covered - this is an assault on my religious freedom.

What you do in your personal life is personal, just don't expect me to pay for it.

The rest of your post is filled with so many assumptions that I really don't care to respond, as it would be fruitless anyway. Sorry, but I don't have time for silly arguments and name calling. If you want to have a constructive discussion, fine, but keep it constructive.

 

[doubtingmerle]

1. Firefighters often do the extraction, and this service is paid for by state and local taxes.
2. Laws vary from state to state, but in an auto accident other than being paid by your health insurance medical expenses can also be paid by your auto insurance or by the person who was at fault. In my state, if you left me to die you would have to first assume I was at fault. (Since I do not carry PIP and am not required to by law.)
3. Nowhere did I say that emergency medical treatment should be denied, only that I would assume the cost.

Excuse me, but what you said was, "But I would be more than happy to sign an insurance waiver to ensure that if I got sick the costs would not be assumed by the public." If local taxes are paying to help you, then the public is assuming the cost.

And if you are signing a waiver saying the costs would not be assumed by the public, and you are found unconscious with no money and no insurance, then what can that waiver possibly mean? Under that waiver, if you could not pay for it, and the public should not pay for it, who in the heck would? That waiver seems to say that you don't want people to pay for what you can't afford, so if you cannot afford the treatments, it seems to say don't treat you. If that is not what it means, what does it mean?

I'll ignore the first question because its rather foolish.

It does not seem like a foolish question to me. You had said, "It just seems like they are more than willing to take away the rights of others for their own benefit." So if you are going to make the accusation that some people are more than willing to do this, then it seems like a very good question to ask you who is actually doing this. Why is that a foolish question?

The rest of your post is filled with so many assumptions that I really don't care to respond, as it would be fruitless anyway.

Can you name one thing that I said that was an unwarranted assumption? If I misunderstood what you meant, I will certainly apologize.

Sorry, but I don't have time for silly arguments and name calling. If you want to have a constructive discussion, fine, but keep it constructive.

Excuse me, but I don't see any name calling in that post you responded to. If you think something in that post was "name calling", please show me the offending text, so I can remove it.

 

[MarkSB]

Excuse me, but what you said was, "But I would be more than happy to sign an insurance waiver to ensure that if I got sick the costs would not be assumed by the public." If local taxes are paying to help you, then the public is assuming the cost.

And if you are signing a waiver saying the costs would not be assumed by the public, and you are found unconscious with no money and no insurance, then what can that waiver possibly mean? Under that waiver, if you could not pay for it, and the public should not pay for it, who in the heck would? That waiver seems to say that you don't want people to pay for what you can't afford, so if you cannot afford the treatments, it seems to say don't treat you. If that is not what it means, what does it mean?

You've completely ignored the fact that in an auto accident medical expenses can be covered by either the person's auto insurance or the party who was at fault.

And for some reason you keep assuming that I wouldn't have the money to pay for the expenses.

It does not seem like a foolish question to me. You had said, "It just seems like they are more than willing to take away the rights of others for their own benefit." So if you are going to make the accusation that some people are more than willing to do this, then it seems like a very good question to ask you who is actually doing this. Why is that a foolish question?

Because asking for specific names on the internet is inappropriate. Perhaps I misunderstood your question, and you were asking for the names of public figures. The people who I'm speaking of are acquaintances, people who I know.

Can you name one thing that I said that was an unwarranted assumption? If I misunderstood what you meant, I will certainly apologize.

An Example:

Imagine that! Some people think others should not be left to die in pain if they get sick without insurance. Imagine that people actually have those kinds of feeling for the suffering poor around them!

You seem to keep assuming:
-people against Obamacare do not care if others die
-people against Obamacare are apathetic toward those who are suffering
-people against Obamacare do not care about those around them

I've not read all your posts but you seem to keep insinuating these things over and over again.

Excuse me, but I don't see any name calling in that post you responded to. If you think something in that post was "name calling", please show me the offending text, so I can remove it.

Name calling may not be the best way to put it. It was just a reference to the assumptions above which you seem to be making, so not name calling specifically.

 

[doubtingmerle]

And for some reason you keep assuming that I wouldn't have the money to pay for the expenses.

And for some reason you keep assuming that I am assuming that you would not have money to pay for the assumed expenses. I am not assuming that. So why are you assuming that I am assuming something that I am not actually assuming (assuming that you are actually assuming what one would naturally assume you are assuming from the words you write)?

You seem to keep assuming:
-people against Obamacare do not care if others die
-people against Obamacare are apathetic toward those who are suffering
-people against Obamacare do not care about those around them

I've not read all your posts but you seem to keep insinuating these things over and over again.

I have never assumed that, or ever stated that. Please go by what I actually write, OK?

40,000 people die each year because they do not have health insurance. Is that OK with you? If not, what do you think we should do about it?

Name calling may not be the best way to put it. It was just a reference to the assumptions above which you seem to be making, so not name calling specifically.

Darn right it isn't the best way to put it! For there was no name calling!

If you are not eating dog ears, and somebody says you are eating dog ears, than can you see that falsely saying, "You are eating dog ears" is not the best thing to say to him?

Likewise, when a person is not name calling, then saying that he is name calling is not the best way to tell a person he is not name calling. I agree.

 

[MarkSB]

And for some reason you keep assuming that I am assuming that you would not have money to pay for the assumed expenses. I am not assuming that. So why are you assuming that I am assuming something that I am not actually assuming (assuming that you are actually assuming what one would naturally assume you are assuming from the words you write)?

I have never assumed that, or ever stated that. Please go by what I actually write, OK?

40,000 people die each year because they do not have health insurance. Is that OK with you? If not, what do you think we should do about it?



Darn right it isn't the best way to put it! For there was no name calling!

If you are not eating dog ears, and somebody says you are eating dog ears, than can you see that falsely saying, "You are eating dog ears" is not the best thing to say to him?

Likewise, when a person is not name calling, then saying that he is name calling is not the best way to tell a person he is not name calling. I agree.

Like I said, a fruitless conversation. Not only do you seek to assasinate the character of those who oppose your viewpoint, but then you are dishonest about it as well.

Good luck with your incoherent ramblings.