Reply With Quote
The Hospital she is at has a $100 million charitable fund; they are also actively searching for options for the patient: including Medicaid, and at least "8 other avenues".
How would any Republican proposal defeat adverse selection?
[and the self-sustaining spiral implied?]
The Hospital she is at has a $100 million charitable fund; they are also actively searching for options for the patient: including Medicaid, and at least "8 other avenues".
Using leukemia and cancer patients as political props for these poster pieces is so old and tired. Here's who Obama needs to be trotting out there as his subject piece for healthcare reform.
Super sized mother determined to become world's fattest woman
Funny how fearmongering and toying with emotions becomes admissible if it's done by Obama.
ElNono, do you have the numbers for how many people would avoid bankruptcy if they were allowed to keep the money they have to deliver to the government in the form of taxes? Do you have the number of people who will go bankrupt once the money the government confiscates increases due to this new en lement program?
Do you?
Seriously, what are you talking about?
About the stories of the people that are going to die/go bankrupt if his BigFarma-sponsored bill which counts with bipartisanship opposition doesn't pass.
They are going bankrupt now.. that's the truth not a scare tactic. I guess if the truth is scary we probably shouldn't talk about it.
Oh, I think we should. Obama and Giuliani alike. I just found the duplicity from the left funny. What about you?
Clinic: Cancer Patient Who Wrote to Obama Will Not Lose Home, May Get Aid
Just as there are multiple options for all patients similarly situated.But Sornberger said that even if Canfield doesn't qualify for charity care or Medicaid, "there's probably eight to 10 options that a patient has" to find payment.
And, none of those 8-10 other options are Obamacare.
Like social security and medicare for example.................
are these options available for everyone else? I'll anxiously await your response.
Considering that taxation is based on a percentage of your actual income, your assessment of bankruptcy due to taxation is deeply flawed.
But you knew that.
That would be Big Pharma. Feel free to add Insurance Co-sponsored bill too.
And the two things are not mutually exclusive. The proposed legislation certainly does not address the affordability to care dilemma. I would even argue that it exacerbates it.
Here's a question I have:
I'm sure more conservatives would agree that the buildup of wealth in a country is a positive thing, correct?
I'm sure they would also agree that people who contract a deadly disease, through no fault of their own, could lose all their wealth trying to take care of it.
So, hypothetically speaking, if we could defray the cost of the health care by spreading it out amongst a greater number of people, thereby keeping a greater level of wealth in the country, would this be desirable? Or should the ability to keep one's wages trump the ability of a nation to maintain wealth?
Yes, However, there are various risk pools.
I don't want to be in the same risk pool as someone who eats 10 pounds a day at McDonalds. I cannot think of a viable way to insure everyone. when you include millions of people who are not assessed premiums by their habits and conditions, it just increases the costs for all of us. This alone, will put some into bankruptcy, else they must reduce their lifestyle costs in other areas.
Health insurance is not a right. It is one of those things that people should strive to have by bettering themselves. I think we already give too much to those who cannot get it themselves. They get cared for in the emergency rooms and clinics. We have free clinics everywhere that charge based on income, and most who go there don't pay one red cent. What the left wants to do, is give everyone even better care. That's fine, but lets do it by increasing the wealth of people so they can participate at market values, instead of redistribution of my wealth and others.
If the government gets involved with people who cannot pay their own way, then I say the program is voluntary. If they choose the government plan, they must live on healthy diets, lose weight if overweight, be drug tested, etc. Otherwise, how do we keep such costs down?
Just to play devils advocate with you.......
If lowering health care costs and maintaining a nation's wealth are what's important here, then why not just kick the uninsured out of the emergency rooms and be done with it? Cash, coverage, or GTFO. Would this be desirable?
Uh, that's EXACTLY the problem. People without health insurance often receive medical care anyway, and hospitals EAT THE COST. Which in turn makes the hospitals charge more for their services, which causes health insurance companies to charge the rest of us with health insurance more in premiums.
Get it now?
Because doctors take an oath to DO NO HARM, and most of them take it pretty seriously.
Where in that doctors oath does it state that the insured have a financial obligation to fund health care for the uninsured?
new oath proposal: bag 'em and tag 'em unless they pay cash.
"the insured have a financial obligation to fund health care for the uninsured"
The insured(taxed) already pay for the uninsured, this happens with public/county/state-university hospitals/clinics being OBLIGATED (because they are financed with local/state/federal taxes) not to turn anybody away who can't pay. It's about the only truly humane aspect of the entire US medical system.
And yes, these taxpayer-financed public health providers jack up their fees to patients and for-profit insurers when the govt reimbursements fall short, so the tax-paying insured pay AGAIN for the uninsured.
In a half-serious, half-not response, why not do exactly that?
Premiums would be lowered because there wouldn't be any costs for the uninsured being passed along.
The non-insured would be encouraged to pick up insurance.
No infringement on personal liberty as people would still be free to decide for themselves whether they wanted insurance or not.
And the best part, it doesn't cost anything.
Of course, we can move goalposts around all day.I would argue that some people probably think we SHOULD kick uninsured out of emergency rooms! That's a little inhumane though, and politicians know it, so that argument will never be viable.
It's a balancing set of scales. I think that emergency rooms should be for emergencies only, and if a patient comes in with a non-life-threatening issue, they SHOULD be shown the door. I'm probably in the minority though.
Here is the TRUE issue, in a nuts , I feel. Whichever side comes out with the win will hinge upon the answer to this question.
Is it morally justified to force others to pay for the health of a community at large?
Probably not, in a moral sense, but in a real world sense it happens all the time. You pay for the military to protect you, you pay for senior citizens, you pay for government services you might not need. So even though it may not be morally justified on a fundamental level, it occurs often enough to where proponents can use the "Greater good" argument.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions