Leftists in denial about healthcare

[manifold]

medicaid was expanded to include children and smokers pay for it

And why not expand it more to cover the poverty stricken uninsured, in lieu of Obomneycare?

If getting those people access to healthcare is really what matters, that would do it.

 

[Greenbeard]

medicaid was expanded to include children and smokers pay for it

And why not expand it more to cover the poverty stricken uninsured, in lieu of Obomneycare?

...

This is like a trick question, right?

 

[Ravi]

my apologies

for a moment there I thought you might actually be interested in an honest discussion of the topic.

I'll know better next time.

homestly, your liberty is more important than a human life, to you.

my liberty is more important to me than my own life

What's more valuable, your life or your being an American citizen.

Oh, funny stuff.

 

[manifold]

medicaid was expanded to include children and smokers pay for it

And why not expand it more to cover the poverty stricken uninsured, in lieu of Obomneycare?

...

This is like a trick question, right?

Nope.

 

[manifold]

Ravi has been reduced to trollish, ad hominem heckling.

You know what that means!

 

[Greenbeard]

And why not expand it more to cover the poverty stricken uninsured, in lieu of Obomneycare?

...

This is like a trick question, right?

Nope.

Oh. Well, under the ACA (for the first time) being poor is enough to make one eligible for Medicaid. That's new.

 

[manifold]

...

This is like a trick question, right?

Nope.

Oh. Well, under the ACA (for the first time) being poor is enough to make one eligible for Medicaid. That's new.

And why isn't that sufficient? Why do we need the mandate?

 

[Moonglow]

medicaid was expanded to include children and smokers pay for it

And why not expand it more to cover the poverty stricken uninsured, in lieu of Obomneycare?

If getting those people access to healthcare is really what matters, that would do it.

medicaid is payed for by taxpayers dollars, if you have no problem with expanding medicaid, then you have no problem helping poor people get insurance for life saving proceedures through Obamacare

 

[Moonglow]

right now in Missouri to get medicaid you must be 300% below poverty level, that allows a family of three to make only 290 dollars a month.

 

[Greenbeard]

And why isn't that sufficient? Why do we need the mandate?

That's not for poor people (the poor are exempt from the mandate). That's for private insurance markets that can no longer use medical underwriting to prevent free-riding. It's the replacement meant to serve the same function as pre-existing condition exclusions and discriminatory rate setting (which will no longer be allowed). Unsurprisingly, it's about as popular as those things are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

well the your rights are more important than a human life.

Do you understand that people have fought, and died, for those rights? Do you think those people thought that rights are more important than life? Why are you attempting to belittle that sacrifice?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And why isn't that sufficient? Why do we need the mandate?

That's not for poor people (the poor are exempt from the mandate). That's for private insurance markets that can no longer use medical underwriting to prevent free-riding. It's the replacement meant to serve the same function as pre-existing condition exclusions and discriminatory rate setting (which will no longer be allowed). Unsurprisingly, it's about as popular as those things are.

They are not exempt from the mandate, why are you lying?

 

[rdean]

Republicans have two plans for healthcare:

Let them die.

and

Die quickly.

 

[auditor0007]

note: thread inspired by rightwinger's cowardly avoidance of a simple question.


I've read several posts today by leftists echoing the same, well-intentioned theme that the healthcare one receives should NOT be influenced by his ability to pay for it. Sure it sounds noble, righteous and compassionate enough at first blush, but when the concept is explored a bit more objectively one realizes that it's pure fantasy at best, or an Orwellian nightmare at worst.

Consider two patients, both suffering from the same malady that left untreated will kill them in less than a month. Furthermore, the treatment for their malady costs over $5 million dollars and increases their chance of survival from zero to 5%. The only difference between the two patients is wealth. One is dirt poor, the other a billionaire. It seems to me that if the billionaire wants to spend the $5 million out of his own pocket then he has every right to do so. However, according to the logic of leftists in denial, if taxpayers don't foot the $5 million for the same treatment for the pauper it is unfair and evil. Short of that, the only way to guarantee that "the healthcare one receives is not influenced by his ability to pay for it", is to deny the billionaire the right to purchase the treatment with his own money.

So to all you leftists in denial, the only way to cure your denial is to either admit that you support an authoritarian solution to healthcare, devoid of individual freedom, or acknowledge that guaranteeing that "the healthcare one receives is not influenced by his ability to pay for it" is an unattainable utopian fantasy.

The problem with your example is that no insurance company would authorize payment of $5 million for treatment that offered at best a 5% chance of survival. No insurance company would cover that and if we had universal healthcare, the government wouldn't cover it either. However, when the example is more realistic, like a person has cancer and needs a normal regimen of chemo, do you suggest we deny them that?

Here is the other thing; if we had a one payer system and everyone paid into it, then they would be covered and this would not be an issue. The same holds true with mandated insurance coverage. The only time we run into a problem is when we leave the system as it is now, and then people without coverage become sick. And for many, it is not their fault that they are not covered. Many people cannot afford health insurance with a low paying job that does not offer health insurance. An even bigger problem is when someone becomes sick and can no longer work, in which case they lose their insurance, and then cannot pay for coverage. To make matters worse, if they ever are able to go back to work, then they are denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

 

[auditor0007]

If it was your daughter or son who didn't have the money, would you feel the same way?

If you're asking me if I would still believe that the billionaire has the right to spend his own money for the treatment even though the odds of success are low, then yes I will always feel that way. But then again I'm a true believer in individual liberty.

No, I'm questioning that you think it's an authoritarian solution to healthcare. Not that a dying person has no choice or say in whether he wants a DNR but that someone who is young and could by some stretch have the same chance as a millionaire.

I'm against just letting someone die because they are poor.

They already do this you know? If you have no equity in your home or any other means to pay, they will deny extending life if the concensus is that you are going to die within 6 months.

I understand why they do it but these are the death panels that Palin talks about. It shouldn't all be about money, we're human beings and can figure things out better, I believe.

One of our biggest problems is that we cannot accept death. When treatment to live a couple extra months in pain, just because, costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, we are wasting money, plain and simple. This is one of the biggest reasons health insurance costs are completely out of control. Now this is very different from someone being denied treatment when there is an actual chance that they could make a full recovery. In those cases, we should do whatever is reasonably possible. But just to extend someone's life by a couple of months is a waste. If that person has the money themselves and wants to fork it over, so be it, but insurance companies and/or Medicare should not.

 

[Chris]

note: thread inspired by rightwinger's cowardly avoidance of a simple question.


I've read several posts today by leftists echoing the same, well-intentioned theme that the healthcare one receives should NOT be influenced by his ability to pay for it. Sure it sounds noble, righteous and compassionate enough at first blush, but when the concept is explored a bit more objectively one realizes that it's pure fantasy at best, or an Orwellian nightmare at worst.

Consider two patients, both suffering from the same malady that left untreated will kill them in less than a month. Furthermore, the treatment for their malady costs over $5 million dollars and increases their chance of survival from zero to 5%. The only difference between the two patients is wealth. One is dirt poor, the other a billionaire. It seems to me that if the billionaire wants to spend the $5 million out of his own pocket then he has every right to do so. However, according to the logic of leftists in denial, if taxpayers don't foot the $5 million for the same treatment for the pauper it is unfair and evil. Short of that, the only way to guarantee that "the healthcare one receives is not influenced by his ability to pay for it", is to deny the billionaire the right to purchase the treatment with his own money.

So to all you leftists in denial, the only way to cure your denial is to either admit that you support an authoritarian solution to healthcare, devoid of individual freedom, or acknowledge that guaranteeing that "the healthcare one receives is not influenced by his ability to pay for it" is an unattainable utopian fantasy.

The right is always worried about the poor billionaires.

 

[midcan5]

The right is always worried about the poor billionaires.

So true, that odd sentiment and slogans guide them today. The real world of hope and tragedy eludes them. 'Liberty' is meaningless when dead, and like all words that reference a worldview, the word is relative, sometimes useful, most of the time spin and obfuscation.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html

 

[California Girl]

Perhaps we should have some kind of 'government funding' for healthcare.

How about we all pay into a fund - everyone, no matter how much or how little you earn - everyone pays the exact same rate. That fund is ringfenced for specific, catastrophic illness treatment only. We could define within that tax exactly what will be paid for. Nothing more, nothing less. You get cancer, you won't lose your home because the care will be funded. No matter who you are - that money is available. Whether you are Warren Buffet or clean the floors at Mickey Ds. Should you be a multimillionaire and you choose to pay for a more expensive treatment, that's fine, your money, your choice but the fund would cover the basic care required.

Other than that, you either have insurance, or you take the risk. On your own head be the consequences. And, if you lose your home because you chose not to have insurance, so be it.

Just an idea.

 

[manifold]

The right is always worried about the poor billionaires.

I'm always worried about everybody's rights, especially my own. And I assure you I'm not a billionaire.

 

[manifold]

Gotta love the leftist spin. If you don't agree that the federal government has, or should have the authority to impose a mandate then you're a poor hating right-wing extremist.

I wonder if some of these dingbats even realize what laughingstocks they are?