Let's be honest about the GOP position on health care....

#251
#251
lawgator1 said:
I am seeing a lot of deflecting here. My question now is simple: Do you fundamentally oppose a system of health care insurance and regulation whereby people who are uninsured and cannot afford medical care get it anyway, at the expense of the rest of us?
Click to expand...

have you heard of medicaid? we already have such a system.
 
#252
#252
lawgator1 said:
I am seeing a lot of deflecting here. My question now is simple: Do you fundamentally oppose a system of health care insurance and regulation whereby people who are uninsured and cannot afford medical care get it anyway, at the expense of the rest of us?
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you rephrase your question, you are not going to get the answer YOU are looking for.
 
#253
#253
volinbham said:
1. Change of regulations. This bill wants to maintain the private insurance industry (so the supporters claim). Taking that as a starting point we can tighten some regulation (pre-existing, caps, dropping coverage) while loosening others (mandated coverage minimums, interstate competition, portability)

2. Expand HSAs. Along with a broader set of choices for customers (see loosening of regs) incentivize customers to use the HC they need by seeing the true price. You want HC costs to come down? You have to change utilization. This bill will increase utilization.

3. Use tax credits/subsidies to help individuals buy insurance. The goal of 2 and 3 is to divorce HC coverage from employment.

4. Use existing safety net systems (e.g. county clinics, Medicaid, SCHIP) to extend coverage to those who cannot purchase the lower price plans resulting from 1, 2 and 3.

5. Tort reform, fraud reduction. Along with #2 and #3 we can take action to lower actual HC costs based on individual choice not government panels.

What's not in this?

Mandated insurance
Requiring all to have the "same" insurance
Continued isolation from true price of HC
Massive entitlement growth
Robbing of one entitlement (Medicare) to pay for the new one.
One more group (government panels) between doctors and patients
Click to expand...

+1

:hi:
 
#254
#254
droski said:
have you heard of medicaid? we already have such a system.
Click to expand...


Medicaid covers a fairly narrow range of people. Not everyone qualifies for it.

If a young person who makes, say, $25,000 a year but who has no insurance through his employer were to get really ill or be in an accident where there was no insurance, you have to pick. Does he get care? Or does he die?

Choose.
 
#255
#255
lawgator1 said:
Medicaid covers a fairly narrow range of people. Not everyone qualifies for it.

If a young person who makes, say, $25,000 a year but who has no insurance through his employer were to get really ill or be in an accident where there was no insurance, you have to pick. Does he get care? Or does he die?

Choose.
Click to expand...

At $25k a year he can afford health insurance.
 
#256
#256
Really, you are resorting to a high school debate?

Of course every one would want the person to receive care.

We are arguing about the delivery system.................
 
#259
#259
OrangeEmpire said:
Really, you are resorting to a high school debate?

Of course every one would want the person to receive care.

We are arguing about the delivery system.................
Click to expand...

Look at the thread title - it's about honesty. You know, like if you don't favor this bill you want people to die.
 
#261
#261
lawgator1 said:
Medicaid covers a fairly narrow range of people. Not everyone qualifies for it.

If a young person who makes, say, $25,000 a year but who has no insurance through his employer were to get really ill or be in an accident where there was no insurance, you have to pick. Does he get care? Or does he die?

Choose.
Click to expand...

i was that young person. i got healthcare insurance from blue cross for $50 a month. did it cover broken bones? nope. but if i got hit by a car it pays everything. that guy person can clearly afford it.

and how is this stupid example relavant to the current situation? NO ONE AGREES WITH YOU that it will save us money to have preventitive insurance. that is the core argument by you here.
 
Last edited:
#262
#262
if you make $85k a year as a single person you get a $750 fine under this bill if you don't have health insurance. now if your cost is $8,500 why not pay the fine and wait till you have a major medical problem before you pay up for the insurance?
 
Last edited:
#263
#263
lawgator1 said:
Medicaid covers a fairly narrow range of people. Not everyone qualifies for it.

If a young person who makes, say, $25,000 a year but who has no insurance through his employer were to get really ill or be in an accident where there was no insurance, you have to pick. Does he get care? Or does he die?

Choose.
Click to expand...

Are you rephrasing the question AGAIN?
 
#264
#264
droski said:
if you make $85 a year as a single person you get a $750 fine under this bill if you have health insurance. now if your cost is $8,500 why not pay the fine and wait till you have a major medical problem before you pay up for the insurance?
Click to expand...

'cause I don't think there's gonna be a Health Insurance vending machine that you drop some money into and get insurance 30 seconds later.

There would likely be a lag time between when you start the process of getting insurance and when the process is finished and it actually takes effect.

So yeah, if you're willing to take that chance, then I suppose it would make sense.
 
#265
#265
droski said:
i was that young person. i got healthcare insurance from blue cross for $50 a month. did it cover broken bones? nope. but if i got hit by a car it pays everything. that guy person can clearly afford it.

and how is this stupid example relavant to the current situation? NO ONE AGREES WITH YOU that it will save us money to have preventitive insurance. that is the core argument by you here.
Click to expand...

Actually, I agree with him.

So your argument is flawed.
 
#266
#266
VolInMn said:
'cause I don't think there's gonna be a Health Insurance vending machine that you drop some money into and get insurance 30 seconds later.

There would likely be a lag time between when you start the process of getting insurance and when the process is finished and it actually takes effect.

So yeah, if you're willing to take that chance, then I suppose it would make sense.
Click to expand...

of course that is how it's going to work. they cannot turn down anyone with preexisting conditions so why the wait in coverage?
 
#267
#267
VolInMn said:
'cause I don't think there's gonna be a Health Insurance vending machine that you drop some money into and get insurance 30 seconds later.

There would likely be a lag time between when you start the process of getting insurance and when the process is finished and it actually takes effect.

So yeah, if you're willing to take that chance, then I suppose it would make sense.
Click to expand...

Many will take that chance then if they can't get insurance immediately it will be a fault of the system and one more sob story presented by a politician of why we need to stick it to those insurance SoBs.
 
#269
#269
droski said:
if you make $85k a year as a single person you get a $750 fine under this bill if you don't have health insurance. now if your cost is $8,500 why not pay the fine and wait till you have a major medical problem before you pay up for the insurance?
Click to expand...

ding, ding, freaking DING
 
#270
#270
As usual, everyone conveniently ignoring the example by hypothesizing other situations.

Let me be clear.

He is 22 years old.
He makes $25,000 a year.
He did not have health insurance (either ti wasn't offered or, being young and naive, he didn't buy it).
He does not qualify for Medicaid because he is single, male, young, and has a job.


He wakes up one morning and has terrible pneumonia.
He goes to the hospital and the physcian determines that, with proper medication and treatment and a hospital stay of a week, he will recover. Without it, he will die.

The cost for the treatment is estimated to be $20,000.

He has no insurance. He doesn't have the $20,000.

Would you advocate that he get the treatment anyway, and that the cost of care be woven into the bills for the rest of us by higher costs for everything from aspirin to surgery? That he get the care but that a local taxing district be set up to take 1 % on top of all sales taxes so as to pay for indigent care for the community?

That he not get the care at all and die?

Or, would you propose that he can buy the insurance right there on the spot and have the coverage? Or, that he be covered by Medicaid?
 
#271
#271
lawgator1 said:
As usual, everyone conveniently ignoring the example by hypothesizing other situations.

Let me be clear.

He is 22 years old.
He makes $25,000 a year.
He did not have health insurance (either ti wasn't offered or, being young and naive, he didn't buy it).
He does not qualify for Medicaid because he is single, male, young, and has a job.


He wakes up one morning and has terrible pneumonia.
He goes to the hospital and the physcian determines that, with proper medication and treatment and a hospital stay of a week, he will recover. Without it, he will die.

The cost for the treatment is estimated to be $20,000.

He has no insurance. He doesn't have the $20,000.

Would you advocate that he get the treatment anyway, and that the cost of care be woven into the bills for the rest of us by higher costs for everything from aspirin to surgery? That he get the care but that a local taxing district be set up to take 1 % on top of all sales taxes so as to pay for indigent care for the community?

That he not get the care at all and die?

Or, would you propose that he can buy the insurance right there on the spot and have the coverage? Or, that he be covered by Medicaid?
Click to expand...

I reserve the right to not give a damn about your anecdotal story, real or otherwise.
 
#272
#272
Because of his stupidity he gets the healthcare and now owes $20K that he has to pay off potentially for the rest of his life. your actions have consequences.
 
#273
#273
Easy. He gets the treatment. Gets billed the 20k and pays it off unless he files for bankruptcy. If he is too stupid to get catastrophic insurance making his salary then he almost doesn't deserve the treatment.
 
#274
#274
lawgator1 said:
As usual, everyone conveniently ignoring the example by hypothesizing other situations.

Let me be clear.

He is 22 years old.
He makes $25,000 a year.
He did not have health insurance (either ti wasn't offered or, being young and naive, he didn't buy it).
He does not qualify for Medicaid because he is single, male, young, and has a job.


He wakes up one morning and has terrible pneumonia.
He goes to the hospital and the physcian determines that, with proper medication and treatment and a hospital stay of a week, he will recover. Without it, he will die.

The cost for the treatment is estimated to be $20,000.

He has no insurance. He doesn't have the $20,000.

Would you advocate that he get the treatment anyway, and that the cost of care be woven into the bills for the rest of us by higher costs for everything from aspirin to surgery? That he get the care but that a local taxing district be set up to take 1 % on top of all sales taxes so as to pay for indigent care for the community?

That he not get the care at all and die?

Or, would you propose that he can buy the insurance right there on the spot and have the coverage? Or, that he be covered by Medicaid?
Click to expand...

Again?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top