We donít have people [...] who die [...] because they have no insurance [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : We donít have people [...] who die [...] because they have no insurance


WarCry
10-11-2012, 09:26
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html


The small-government candidate says people don't die in their homes because they don't have insurance. He says that's what emergency rooms are for, and if patients can't pick up the bill, that's what the government is for.


Does anyone know of an ER that will give regularly scheduled chemo? Or dialysis?

jbotstein1
10-11-2012, 09:43
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Dave.1
10-11-2012, 09:50
At least not 'till their vouchers run out.

Dave

Flying-Dutchman
10-11-2012, 10:19
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html


The small-government candidate says people don't die in their homes because they don't have insurance. He says that's what emergency rooms are for, and if patients can't pick up the bill, that's what the government is for.


Does anyone know of an ER that will give regularly scheduled chemo? Or dialysis?
My GF works in a big city ER. Everyone gets treated from the illegal immigrant with a sore throat who calls an ambulance to avoid waiting their turn to the seriously ill on a ventilator.

Every time a Medicare or Medicaid walks in, the hospital loses $800 right off the bat.

Letís see I pay 49% of the peopleís housing, food, cell phone and now Obama-Care.:upeyes:

I might as well turn in my entire income and if I salute our rulers maybe they will give me a 500 square foot cinder block apartment and a bus pass.

stevelyn
10-11-2012, 10:24
So I have to carry these people on my back because they failed to to properly plan take responsibility for themselves? :upeyes:

WarCry
10-11-2012, 10:37
So I have to carry these people on my back because they failed to to properly plan take responsibility for themselves? :upeyes:

According to Gov. Romney, yes.

Flying-Dutchman
10-11-2012, 10:46
According to Gov. Romney, yes.
Then vote Obama and see the rationing Obama-Care brings. I know a lot of doctors who will retire if Obama-Care stays.

The healthcare problem is a jobs problem. The Democrats let the good jobs with healthcare go overseas so now 49% want the other guy to pay their way in the world.

We pay too much already. I may retire as life is short and am tired of the rat race. Get your free healthcare from someone else.

JohnBT
10-11-2012, 10:48
"Does anyone know of an ER that will give regularly scheduled chemo? Or dialysis?"

Almost all dialysis or transplant patients are eligible for Medicare.

Anyone needing dialysis (even as early as when the first appointment is scheduled) should be on Medicare. The dialysis centers know all of this. The hospitals, too.

John

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 10:52
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html


The small-government candidate says people don't die in their homes because they don't have insurance. He says that's what emergency rooms are for, and if patients can't pick up the bill, that's what the government is for.


Does anyone know of an ER that will give regularly scheduled chemo? Or dialysis?

I worked in dialysis units through college. No one who needs dialysis is denied dialysis. They are either privately insured, covered by medicare or covered by medicaid.

That said, no citizen should be forced to pay to keep another citizen alive.

WarCry
10-11-2012, 12:29
"Does anyone know of an ER that will give regularly scheduled chemo? Or dialysis?"

Almost all dialysis or transplant patients are eligible for Medicare.

Anyone needing dialysis (even as early as when the first appointment is scheduled) should be on Medicare. The dialysis centers know all of this. The hospitals, too.

John

So, then you support tax-funded medical care then. Why NOT just expand Medicare? Because it's a government take over?

Can't have the cake and eat it, too.

glockdoc21
10-11-2012, 12:43
Since EMTALA (look it up) was passed. NO ONE has died from needing dialysis...trust me.

Dennis in MA
10-11-2012, 12:58
This pot seems duly stirred. :upeyes:


Paul Ryan has a great plan. We have one thing to do to implement it.

What it WILL mean is that retirees WILL have to pay more for THEIR OWN health care. Forgive me, but TOUGH POO! I'm tired of being told that I am REQUIRED to pay for someone's health care JUST BECAUSE they are old. I have retired MILLIONAIRES who want me (and you) to pay for their health care.

Medicare is the fastest growing segment of federal government and will be for the next 30 years. Something must be done so that these people pay a FAIR share of their own costs. I pay 100% of mine. So go figure it out, folks.

WarCry
10-11-2012, 13:16
This pot seems duly stirred. :upeyes:


Paul Ryan has a great plan. We have one thing to do to implement it.

What it WILL mean is that retirees WILL have to pay more for THEIR OWN health care. Forgive me, but TOUGH POO! I'm tired of being told that I am REQUIRED to pay for someone's health care JUST BECAUSE they are old. I have retired MILLIONAIRES who want me (and you) to pay for their health care.

Medicare is the fastest growing segment of federal government and will be for the next 30 years. Something must be done so that these people pay a FAIR share of their own costs. I pay 100% of mine. So go figure it out, folks.

But see, that is exactly the problem. The point of the ACA was to get people to buy their own insurance, and if they don't, they pay a tax penalty to offset the costs going to the government.

What Gov. Romney is saying is that you should NOT be required to buy health insurance, because if you REALLY need help, you go to the ER and if you can't pay, then some charity (not likely, as they're stretched to the breaking) or the GOVERNMENT will have to step in and pay the bills.

This issue is divisive, but from everything I can tell, it's divisive for exactly the wrong reasons and the arguments being made are completely backwards.

Ian Moone
10-11-2012, 13:26
This pot seems duly stirred. :upeyes:




LOL ...it's not fully stirred until the name Ron Paul has been envoked.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/popcorn.gif

stevelyn
10-11-2012, 16:14
The ACA was/is a wrong-headed plan. If you truely want to make health care affordable, you are going to have to start with tort reform and limit what and how much people can file suit for malpractice. But that won't happen because there are too many scum-sucking lawyers in Congress and the state legislatures writing the bills that don't want to derail their gravey train. :steamed:

shotgunred
10-11-2012, 17:41
"Does anyone know of an ER that will give regularly scheduled chemo? Or dialysis?"

Almost all dialysis or transplant patients are eligible for Medicare.

Anyone needing dialysis (even as early as when the first appointment is scheduled) should be on Medicare. The dialysis centers know all of this. The hospitals, too.

John

Yes I happen to know a guy that gets his dialysis by going to the ER. Of course I have also seen people go to the ER for aspirin and a pregnancy test.

Jim in MI
10-11-2012, 17:43
There is an illegal Mexican that goes to one of the Grand Rapids hospital's ER 3 days a week for dialysis.

podwich
10-11-2012, 18:20
But see, that is exactly the problem. The point of the ACA was to get people to buy their own insurance, and if they don't, they pay a tax penalty to offset the costs going to the government.

What Gov. Romney is saying is that you should NOT be required to buy health insurance, because if you REALLY need help, you go to the ER and if you can't pay, then some charity (not likely, as they're stretched to the breaking) or the GOVERNMENT will have to step in and pay the bills.

This issue is divisive, but from everything I can tell, it's divisive for exactly the wrong reasons and the arguments being made are completely backwards.

So, if I'm reading you right, you support people paying for their own healthcare?

So I suppose then you'd support dumping the government from healthcare and "insurance" and go to completely privately-funded or cash system? That would require people to pay for their own coverage, just like you want.

hotpig
10-11-2012, 18:40
I work part time in a ER. It is fairly common to get renal failure patients presenting in ER. We do not have Dialysis so we ship them to a larger Hospital in St Louis.

It is a scare tactic by the Democrats saying people get turned away and die. In 22 years of working there I have never had to step over dead bodies outside of the hospital.

Bren
10-11-2012, 19:03
According to Gov. Romney, yes.

If so, it's a lot smaller yes than the laternative has already imposed. You may have a hard time selling us on Obama's healthcare plan.

WarCry
10-11-2012, 19:36
If so, it's a lot smaller yes than the laternative has already imposed. You may have a hard time selling us on Obama's healthcare plan.

Obamacare is being touted as the first slip toward evil and wicked socialism because it's (somehow) pushing people toward government healthcare by forcing them to buy their own.

Gov. Romney is saying if you don't have insurance, don't worry about it, because the government will take of your bills if you don't have any.


I just want to see folks continue to attack "government take-over of health care" while at the same time defending people's right to NOT buy health insurance because the government will handle it.

WarCry
10-11-2012, 19:37
It is a scare tactic by the Democrats saying people get turned away and die. In 22 years of working there I have never had to step over dead bodies outside of the hospital.

What about those that never even went to the hospital?

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 19:40
What about those that never even went to the hospital?

If they can't pay for their care, and no one is willing to provide them charity, they have no business going to the hospital any more than they have business in the grocery store if they can't pay for their groceries.

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 19:42
Obamacare is being touted as the first slip toward evil and wicked socialism because it's (somehow) pushing people toward government healthcare by forcing them to buy their own.

Gov. Romney is saying if you don't have insurance, don't worry about it, because the government will take of your bills if you don't have any.


I just want to see folks continue to attack "government take-over of health care" while at the same time defending people's right to NOT buy health insurance because the government will handle it.

Obamacare is designed to force private insurers out of the market so that people are funneled into single payer government healthcare, Euro style. It IS socialism.

Socialist are thieving scum.

RenoF250
10-11-2012, 20:08
I do not have a problem paying for the healthcare of people that TRULY cannot afford it - children etc. but I have no interest in covering someones bills because they decided to pay $100/month for a phone rather than health insurance.

Once thing I think government should do is require health insurance companies to insure anyone WITHOUT consideration of pre-existing conditions. When figuring out your premium they could use your age, smoker, and perhaps weight. Obviously some would cost more than others but that would be the cost of doing business and it would come out in the wash. I don't mind paying more to help pay for someone who got dealt a crappy hand health wise. That is not their fault. No one with a health problem could afford to pay if their premium was based on what they actually cost.

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 20:14
I do not have a problem paying for the healthcare of people that TRULY cannot afford it -

Then you should, with your own money. Don't assume your neighbor feels the same way. Don't spend his money for him.



Once thing I think government should do is require health insurance companies to insure anyone WITHOUT consideration of pre-existing conditions. When figuring out your premium they could use your age, smoker, and perhaps weight. Obviously some would cost more than others but that would be the cost of doing business and it would come out in the wash.

If someone has a pre-existing condition that requires $50,000 per year in healthcare, why should they get it for less than $50,000?

I don't mind paying more to help pay for someone who got dealt a crappy hand health wise. That is not their fault.

Then you should. Don't impose that on anyone else. Be charitable with your own money.

No one with a health problem could afford to pay if their premium was based on what they actually cost.

Why should someone else be forced to pay for it?

pmcjury
10-11-2012, 20:20
Is very charitable of you to be willing to pay more for some one that got dealt a ****ty hand but don't try and force me to.

Insurance premiums are based on how much the insurance company thinks you will cost it using the available information. Of you have a preexisting condition that is going to cost a ton of money to treat then that should be taken into account. If an insurance company had to insure everyone for one rate occasional users of the health care system will get screwed. If you screw them to much they will drop coverage and then the system is hosed

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

dbcooper
10-11-2012, 21:18
Obamacare is designed to force private insurers out of the market so that people are funneled into single payer government healthcare, Euro style. It IS socialism.

Socialist are thieving scum.

I saw this in the rants section of the local paper, don't know if they came up with it themselves or got it elsewhere but it sums things up pretty well :

We're going to be gifted with a health care plan we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a commitee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted social security and medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese and financed by a country that's broke. So, what could possibly go wrong?

RenoF250
10-11-2012, 21:22
Is very charitable of you to be willing to pay more for some one that got dealt a ****ty hand but don't try and force me to.

Insurance premiums are based on how much the insurance company thinks you will cost it using the available information. Of you have a preexisting condition that is going to cost a ton of money to treat then that should be taken into account. If an insurance company had to insure everyone for one rate occasional users of the health care system will get screwed. If you screw them to much they will drop coverage and then the system is hosed

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

Okay, so you and certified are willing to die when you have kidney failure and can no longer afford your insurance premiums? Actually, why even have insurance with your system? Once you have a problem you are more expensive so your premiums will jump up to what you cost.

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 21:30
Okay, so you and certified are willing to die when you have kidney failure and can no longer afford your insurance premiums? Actually, why even have insurance with your system? Once you have a problem you are more expensive so your premiums will jump up to what you cost.

Yes. Rather than force someone else to pay for it, I would rather go ahead and die. Can't live forever.

Forcing someone else to pay for my care would be evil.

Of course, by taking care of my own health in terms of blood pressure and diabetes, I won't be needing dialysis.

Charity is a beautiful thing. It's what makes us human. Do it with your own money.

hotpig
10-12-2012, 00:05
What about those that never even went to the hospital?

People with insurance generally do not go to the hospital unless they have to. Some older people are very resistive also because they do not want to be a burden or be away from home.

The working poor who make too much to get on Medicaid but not enough to by insurance and eat to can be a problem. Probably would save money just to add them Medicaid instead of doing all of this obama care stuff.

Some on Medicaid think that the hospital is their home. They are there more than once per week because they had a tickle in their throat or were bitten by a mosquito. They always want a script for Tylenol, a antibiotic and pain medicine. They are covered with the magic card when prescribed and can be sold or traded to fund other vices.

JW1178
10-12-2012, 00:25
First of all, being overweight and a smoker are two things that should be considered in your insurance rates, but anyways....

Malpractice suites need to be limited. Also, illegal immigrants should either be turned away or their home country should be forced to pay the tab. The ER should be only for those with Emergencies. Lesser issues can be handled by a medical assistant or nurse. That is probably what is going to happen in the long run. Do you really need a Dr for things like stitches, or a sprain, or a sore throat? Let the DR focus on things where his 8+ years of training is required.

douggmc
10-12-2012, 00:43
So I have to carry these people on my back because they failed to to properly plan take responsibility for themselves? :upeyes:

You already are (were) pre-Obamacare.

The only thing Obamacare does, via its primary core concept: "the mandate", is try to mitigate that cost/burden on you (us ... the folks that do take responsibility for ourselves). It does this by requiring said dumbasses to get insurance if they can afford it. They will no longer (easily) be able to skate by and gamble (by not insuring themselves) that they won't get cancer, hit by a bus, or "accidentally" get that large foreign object stuck up their colon .... any of which would cost us a hefty sum to address in the ER after they skip out on the bill.

douggmc
10-12-2012, 00:45
I worked in dialysis units through college. No one who needs dialysis is denied dialysis. They are either privately insured, covered by medicare or covered by medicaid.

That said, no citizen should be forced to pay to keep another citizen alive.

Let's just all skip right over his other example ... chemotherapy.

douggmc
10-12-2012, 00:47
This pot seems duly stirred. :upeyes:


Paul Ryan has a great plan. We have one thing to do to implement it.

What it WILL mean is that retirees WILL have to pay more for THEIR OWN health care. Forgive me, but TOUGH POO! I'm tired of being told that I am REQUIRED to pay for someone's health care JUST BECAUSE they are old. I have retired MILLIONAIRES who want me (and you) to pay for their health care.

Medicare is the fastest growing segment of federal government and will be for the next 30 years. Something must be done so that these people pay a FAIR share of their own costs. I pay 100% of mine. So go figure it out, folks.

Eligibility for Medicare and SS should be means tested and indexed.

douggmc
10-12-2012, 00:48
LOL ...it's not fully stirred until the name Ron Paul has been envoked.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/popcorn.gif

or "Socialism"

douggmc
10-12-2012, 00:50
But see, that is exactly the problem. The point of the ACA was to get people to buy their own insurance, and if they don't, they pay a tax penalty to offset the costs going to the government.

What Gov. Romney is saying is that you should NOT be required to buy health insurance, because if you REALLY need help, you go to the ER and if you can't pay, then some charity (not likely, as they're stretched to the breaking) or the GOVERNMENT will have to step in and pay the bills.

This issue is divisive, but from everything I can tell, it's divisive for exactly the wrong reasons and the arguments being made are completely backwards.

Yep. :thumbsup:

This might be one of my all time favorite Romney videos:
Romney "Very Pleased With" Individual Mandate - YouTube

douggmc
10-12-2012, 00:54
The ACA was/is a wrong-headed plan. If you truely want to make health care affordable, you are going to have to start with tort reform and limit what and how much people can file suit for malpractice. But that won't happen because there are too many scum-sucking lawyers in Congress and the state legislatures writing the bills that don't want to derail their gravey train. :steamed:

Yeah ... the tort reform and jury award limit argument has been debunked since about 2009. It adds something like a fraction of a percent to health care costs if I recall the statistic.

Sort of like how much PBS funding adds to the Fed Budget. Nevermind the fact that you could cut EVERYTHING from Fed. Budget besides Medicare/Medicaid, SS, and DoD ... and STILL be running a deficit. Romney Logic Fail. (sorry I digressed off into a tangent)

douggmc
10-12-2012, 01:00
I do not have a problem paying for the healthcare of people that TRULY cannot afford it - children etc. but I have no interest in covering someones bills because they decided to pay $100/month for a phone rather than health insurance.

Once thing I think government should do is require health insurance companies to insure anyone WITHOUT consideration of pre-existing conditions. When figuring out your premium they could use your age, smoker, and perhaps weight. Obviously some would cost more than others but that would be the cost of doing business and it would come out in the wash. I don't mind paying more to help pay for someone who got dealt a crappy hand health wise. That is not their fault. No one with a health problem could afford to pay if their premium was based on what they actually cost.

Let me introduce you to the Affordable Care Act .... also affectionately called "Obamacare".

It does that pre-existing thingie you wrote about above. Great idea!

It also takes a stab at motivating (via tax penalty) that very dummy you refer to in your first paragraph into buying insurance.

douggmc
10-12-2012, 01:06
Yes. Rather than force someone else to pay for it, I would rather go ahead and die. Can't live forever.


I'd be all for an addendum to Obamacare that lets folks "opt out".

Only catch, they and those they are responsible for are required to get a bright red tattoo of the words "Opt Out" on their foreheads. That way, absent the ability to determine their self-insured status and their inability to write a check on the spot due to that nasty head injury rendering you a veggie, the paramedics and fireman can easily identify you and just slide your mangled body off the side of the road, inside your crumpled car, and leave you to die.

Heck ... I'd even support a one-time tax credit to pay for the tattoo as part of this Obamacare addendum.

douggmc
10-12-2012, 01:20
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html

The small-government candidate says people don't die in their homes because they don't have insurance. He says that's what emergency rooms are for, and if patients can't pick up the bill, that's what the government is for.


Right. Interestingly enough, that small-government candidate's alma mater published study a few years ago saying that 45,000 deaths per year are linked to lack of health insurance in the US: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/?scp=2&sq=harvard&st=cse

Now ... queue the 'Harvard is a socialist liberal elite propaganda university' posts ... 5..4..3..2 ...

"Derp. Education are bad. All acadamia persons are socialist liberals ... herp derp. "

Yeeaaah ... think about that ... the smartest people we have in this country tend to be liberals. Which one causes which ... advanced education causes liberalism or liberalism causes advanced education?

frizz
10-12-2012, 02:07
My GF works in a big city ER. Everyone gets treated from the illegal immigrant with a sore throat who calls an ambulance to avoid waiting their turn to the seriously ill on a ventilator.

Every time a Medicare or Medicaid walks in, the hospital loses $800 right off the bat.

Letís see I pay 49% of the peopleís housing, food, cell phone and now Obama-Care.:upeyes:

I might as well turn in my entire income and if I salute our rulers maybe they will give me a 500 square foot cinder block apartment and a bus pass.

This is not true. Coming in on an ambulance does not get you around the triage nurse prioritizing you.

frizz
10-12-2012, 02:11
Let me introduce you to the Affordable Care Act .... also affectionately called "Obamacare".

It does that pre-existing thingie you wrote about above. Great idea!

It also takes a stab at motivating (via tax penalty) that very dummy you refer to in your first paragraph into buying insurance.

Hey! Cut it out with those facts and whatnot.

Flying-Dutchman
10-12-2012, 04:00
This is not true. Coming in on an ambulance does not get you around the triage nurse prioritizing you.
Of course they triage to clear the ER to concentrate on those in real need of ER services.

That does not stop them from trying. I just double checked with her. People will leave and call an ambulance. It happens all the time. They are stupid because they are recognized and have to wait their turn anyway.

They come in to the ER for flea bites, stomachaches and toothaches. It is sickening.

I read the letters from the hospital President. Normally corporate types do not get involved in politics as they do not want to anger the rulers they must deal with.

These letters are surprising in the bluntness and anger towards Obama-Care.

Obama-Care is such a badly written bill, it can only end up with the Government takeover of healthcare; Obamaís evil plan.

Flying-Dutchman
10-12-2012, 04:23
Let me introduce you to the Affordable Care Act .... also affectionately called "Obamacare".

It does that pre-existing thingie you wrote about above. Great idea!

It also takes a stab at motivating (via tax penalty) that very dummy you refer to in your first paragraph into buying insurance.
You make Obama-Care sound so simple and good. At 2,400 pages there is a lot more to it than what you state.

Plus bureaucrats are interpreting what Pelosi and most of the others did not read.

Obama-Care is a tax bill. Many Americans including me will be hit with Obama-Care taxes.

It is a huge regulation of a large portion of our economy and eventual Government takeover.

If you are fine with making me pay for your healthcare, so be it.

Your taxes will be going up too along with the eventual rationing and death panels.

Flying-Dutchman
10-12-2012, 04:34
I'd be all for an addendum to Obamacare that lets folks "opt out".

Only catch, they and those they are responsible for are required to get a bright red tattoo of the words "Opt Out" on their foreheads. That way, absent the ability to determine their self-insured status and their inability to write a check on the spot due to that nasty head injury rendering you a veggie, the paramedics and fireman can easily identify you and just slide your mangled body off the side of the road, inside your crumpled car, and leave you to die.

Heck ... I'd even support a one-time tax credit to pay for the tattoo as part of this Obamacare addendum.
Why a tattoo? Insurance is a scam, sometimes necessary but still a scam.

There are people who have the money and would rather pay cash directly for medical treatment cutting out the bureaucrat waste.

Or people who get a lower cost catastrophic policy and pay the difference in cash because they saved for a rainy day and are self-sufficient (I know a novel concept).

The other HEY!!!!-We-Are-All-Together-In-This scam called Social Security is not working out so well for me and others.

Pay in for years and years and HEYYYY!!! SurpriseÖWe are broke, SorryÖ.

Another Socialist scam, no thanks.

Schrag4
10-12-2012, 05:39
Right. Interestingly enough, that small-government candidate's alma mater published study a few years ago saying that 45,000 deaths per year are linked to lack of health insurance in the US: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/?scp=2&sq=harvard&st=cse

Now ... queue the 'Harvard is a socialist liberal elite propaganda university' posts ... 5..4..3..2 ...

"Derp. Education are bad. All acadamia persons are socialist liberals ... herp derp. "

Yeeaaah ... think about that ... the smartest people we have in this country tend to be liberals. Which one causes which ... advanced education causes liberalism or liberalism causes advanced education?

Hey, I don't doubt that these super-smart people can plan all of our lives better than we ever could. Communism really does work, in theory. It's that whole human nature thing where power corrupts that seems to always get in the way, and that's why individual freedom is best, even though it comes with that pesky little thing called individual responsibility.

So 45,000 deaths per year can be linked to a lack of private health insurance, right? Well guess what, a lack of private health insurance can be linked to a lack of personal responsibility. Are there exceptions to this generalization? Of course. But how many people without insurance have expensive cell phones or cable TV? And what's worse, how many of them smoke or drink excessively? I say worse because in addition to being expensive habits, they also can cause serious health issues, and they're unwilling to buy health insurance!

The study says that people that don't have private health insurance are 40% more likely to die than those who do. That seems like pretty good advertising for private health insurance, but you could throw that stat up on public television every hour, on the hour, and people would still choose not to drop their expensive data plan or cable, or quit smoking and drinking to pay for it. Just how far should we be willing to go as a society to protect people from their own poor decisions?

eracer
10-12-2012, 05:47
Since EMTALA (look it up) was passed. NO ONE has died from needing dialysis...trust me.
Your data, please.

eracer
10-12-2012, 05:54
Right. Interestingly enough, that small-government candidate's alma mater published study a few years ago saying that 45,000 deaths per year are linked to lack of health insurance in the US: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/?scp=2&sq=harvard&st=cse

Now ... queue the 'Harvard is a socialist liberal elite propaganda university' posts ... 5..4..3..2 ...

"Derp. Education are bad. All acadamia persons are socialist liberals ... herp derp. "

Yeeaaah ... think about that ... the smartest people we have in this country tend to be liberals. Which one causes which ... advanced education causes liberalism or liberalism causes advanced education?

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t135/eracer1111/Mr_Mackey_Janitor.jpg

certifiedfunds
10-12-2012, 06:11
Let's just all skip right over his other example ... chemotherapy.

I honestly don't know.

Now, lets rephrase the question: Do you know of an ER that provides chemotherapy that someone else is forced to pay for?

certifiedfunds
10-12-2012, 06:14
I'd be all for an addendum to Obamacare that lets folks "opt out".

Only catch, they and those they are responsible for are required to get a bright red tattoo of the words "Opt Out" on their foreheads. That way, absent the ability to determine their self-insured status and their inability to write a check on the spot due to that nasty head injury rendering you a veggie, the paramedics and fireman can easily identify you and just slide your mangled body off the side of the road, inside your crumpled car, and leave you to die.

Heck ... I'd even support a one-time tax credit to pay for the tattoo as part of this Obamacare addendum.


Why why do socialists have a penchant for tattooing people?

If I opt out of Obamacare and pay for my own healthcare, why should I be left to on the side of the road?

meleors
10-12-2012, 06:45
Yeeaaah ... think about that ... the smartest people we have in this country tend to be liberals. Which one causes which ... advanced education causes liberalism or liberalism causes advanced education?
Intelligence and Educated are not the same thing.
An educated person is not necessarily intelligent and a person can be intelligent but uneducated.

Example: G.W. Bush is the only U.S. President to have earned an M.B.A. which he received from Harvard Business School.
By your reasoning, he should be considered the smartest POTUS ever. Don't you agree?

See? Being educated does not make you smart.

certifiedfunds
10-12-2012, 06:52
Right. Interestingly enough, that small-government candidate's alma mater published study a few years ago saying that 45,000 deaths per year are linked to lack of health insurance in the US: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/?scp=2&sq=harvard&st=cse

Now ... queue the 'Harvard is a socialist liberal elite propaganda university' posts ... 5..4..3..2 ...

"Derp. Education are bad. All acadamia persons are socialist liberals ... herp derp. "

Yeeaaah ... think about that ... the smartest people we have in this country tend to be liberals. Which one causes which ... advanced education causes liberalism or liberalism causes advanced education?

100% of people with health insurance die.

frizz
10-12-2012, 07:47
Hey, I don't doubt that these super-smart people can plan all of our lives better than we ever could. Communism really does work, in theory. It's that whole human nature thing where power corrupts that seems to always get in the way, and that's why individual freedom is best, even though it comes with that pesky little thing called individual responsibility.

So 45,000 deaths per year can be linked to a lack of private health insurance, right? Well guess what, a lack of private health insurance can be linked to a lack of personal responsibility. Are there exceptions to this generalization? Of course. But how many people without insurance have expensive cell phones or cable TV? And what's worse, how many of them smoke or drink excessively? I say worse because in addition to being expensive habits, they also can cause serious health issues, and they're unwilling to buy health insurance!

The study says that people that don't have private health insurance are 40% more likely to die than those who do. That seems like pretty good advertising for private health insurance, but you could throw that stat up on public television every hour, on the hour, and people would still choose not to drop their expensive data plan or cable, or quit smoking and drinking to pay for it. Just how far should we be willing to go as a society to protect people from their own poor decisions?

What is your proof that people who don't have health insurance are spending large sums on unneeded goods and services instead of insurance. Have you priced individual policies? Do you know how much they cost if you have certain preexisting conditions, even if the conditions are excluded? That is, if they can even get coverage.

I have a friend who has bipolar disorder. She asked her agent about a policy, but she could not get ANY policy for ANY price.

You are "reasoning" from feelings and not from facts.

pmcjury
10-12-2012, 16:42
Okay, so you and certified are willing to die when you have kidney failure and can no longer afford your insurance premiums? Actually, why even have insurance with your system? Once you have a problem you are more expensive so your premiums will jump up to what you cost.

That's not at all what I'm saying. That implies the insurance company stops me when I get stick that is different than charging more for a preexisting condition.


Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

series1811
10-12-2012, 16:48
Yeeaaah ... think about that ... the smartest people we have in this country tend to be liberals. Which one causes which ... advanced education causes liberalism or liberalism causes advanced education?

And, liberals, with all their little pea picking hearts, believe this absolutely (that they are the smartest people we have in this country). :supergrin:

And, how do they know the rest of us aren't as smart? Because, if we were, we would think exactly like they do, and believe exactly what they believe. It's so simple.

Here is another fun thing to do. Read, "The Best and The Brightest" and see what happens when you put really smart liberals in charge of a war in southeast Asia.

certifiedfunds
10-12-2012, 17:48
What is your proof that people who don't have health insurance are spending large sums on unneeded goods and services instead of insurance. Have you priced individual policies? Do you know how much they cost if you have certain preexisting conditions, even if the conditions are excluded? That is, if they can even get coverage.

I have a friend who has bipolar disorder. She asked her agent about a policy, but she could not get ANY policy for ANY price.

You are "reasoning" from feelings and not from facts.

Would you insure a bipolar person? I wouldn't. How do you price that risk?

racerford
10-12-2012, 21:08
Most large companies have insurance that covers pre-existing conditions.

45,000 people die a year because they have no insurance. No they die because they have fatal conditions. Every one of those people will die and show up in some year's statistics whether that have insurance or not or get treated or not. You cannot stop death only postpone it.

Some big % of health care costs are spent on the last two months of life. An interesting but stupid statistic. Of course that is reasonable. Few people go to the hospital a lot while they are young and healthy (childbirth excepted). Most hospital stays are short unless you are near death.

There used to be literally hundreds if not thousands of charity hospitals around the country. They are all but gone. Why? You don't need voluntarily funded charity hospitals if you take people's money at the point of a gun to pay for those (and more) that would have been treated at a charity hospital.

Flying-Dutchman
10-13-2012, 05:59
This pot seems duly stirred. :upeyes:

Well it stirred the Tea potÖ.the Tea Party was formed thanks to ObamaCare.

Your State voted in Scott Brown to stop Obamacare, but they rammed it through with an illegal reconciliation using dead Ted Kennedyís vote and no Republicans.

I believe you are in the investment business. Your clients cannot be happy.

Instead of the Stimulus, the Democrats could have just paid the insurance for the 47 million uninsured for a lot less money.

No, this is not about healthcare. It is a money and freedom grab.

jbotstein1
10-13-2012, 06:13
I had to admit a guy yesterday because he complained of nausea and vomiting, was an uncontrolled diabetic and his sugars were in the 500s. This is his 40th trip to our ER this year. That doesn't count his trips to the other ER in town which probably equal that amount. He is scheduled for dialysis 3 times/week, but doesn't ever go. He doesn't take any of his meds as instructed and is a complete drain on the system. All of his hospitalizations could easily be avoided if he would do as he is told and take responsibility for his own healthcare. He is 47, lives with his grandmother, and his excuses for missing dialysis are either he was in court or he was in the hospital.

I told him this time that this could all be avoided if he would do as he's told(things I have told him every time I've admitted him in the past), and he responds with, " I have Medicare now and it is easier for me to go to the ER than have to make any scheduled appointments". I took this to the hospital ethics committee, and there isn't a thing we can do about it.

Cool, huh?

jbotstein1
10-13-2012, 06:15
So, he got 3 square meals, dialysis, a warm bed not in his grandmas house, and a free bus ticket at discharge. Where's the motivation?

Flying-Dutchman
10-13-2012, 06:26
I had to admit a guy yesterday because he complained of nausea and vomiting, was an uncontrolled diabetic and his sugars were in the 500s. This is his 40th trip to our ER this year. That doesn't count his trips to the other ER in town which probably equal that amount. He is scheduled for dialysis 3 times/week, but doesn't ever go. He doesn't take any of his meds as instructed and is a complete drain on the system. All of his hospitalizations could easily be avoided if he would do as he is told and take responsibility for his own healthcare. He is 47, lives with his grandmother, and his excuses for missing dialysis are either he was in court or he was in the hospital.

I told him this time that this could all be avoided if he would do as he's told(things I have told him every time I've admitted him in the past), and he responds with, " I have Medicare now and it is easier for me to go to the ER than have to make any scheduled appointments". I took this to the hospital ethics committee, and there isn't a thing we can do about it.

Cool, huh?
He is committing suicide in slow motion.

Hospitals should be allowed to turn away people at their own discretion.

This solves the healthcare problem. Insurance and medical treatment costs would plummet.

Flying-Dutchman
10-13-2012, 06:37
So, he got 3 square meals, dialysis, a warm bed not in his grandmas house, and a free bus ticket at discharge. Where's the motivation?
If hospitals were allowed to turn away people, this man would suddenly start taking his medications unless of course he just wants to die then no one can save him.

jbotstein1
10-13-2012, 07:43
The question is, why does this guy deserve insurance? Why does he get healthcare paid for by the taxpayer? He is unemployed. I asked him why he doesn't get a job, and he said he is trying to get disability, but he can't because of all the medical records stating he is noncompliant with his medicines. So, this deadbeat lives at his grandmas house, bounces from ER to ER, doesn't have a job, yet has hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills paid for each year without any consequence or liability. HEALTHCARE IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE A RIGHT. It is not guaranteed anywhere in our constitution. It is a service that needs to be paid for, and it shoudl not be the responsibilty of society to provide this service for anyone. People should be responsible for themselves. We need to come to terms with the fact that some people die because they are stupid. If we continue trying to prevent Darwin from happening, we will spend ourselves into bankruptcy and an unpayable debt.

GAFinch
10-13-2012, 09:15
ACA doesn't just fine people who don't have insurance, it also fines responsible people who combine a low-cost, catastrophic plan with a Health Savings Account to cover regular visits. Setting a minimum level for plans is nothing more than wealth redistribution. The ACA doesn't fix our current piecemeal healthcare system, it just adds an additional layer on top of it and cost estimates keep getting revised upward. Only well-educated liberals are foolish enough to believe that this won't increase taxes once the less desirable provisions kick in. Only well-educated liberals are foolish enough to not realize that this bill is paving the way for nationalized healthcare - increased Medicare and Medicaid rolls, decreased number of employer-backed plans, creation of fed-backed exchanges and plans, shutting down of smaller providers who can't absorb decreased Medicare payments for patients, shutting down of the remaining Catholic hospitals that still make up one-sixth of hospitals (via contraceptive, abortifacient, and abortion mandates).