Newest Health Care Poll

Should he get the care he needs if he can't afford it. Yes or no?


He is paying for the care he needs. What is the problem?

Let me rephrase, since you like to weasel out of answering questions.

Should someone get the care that they need if they can't afford it? Yes or No

Since you like asking questions, let me put it to you this way. I pay for my bills and health care. Everyone should do the same. No one else is paying my way in life. No one else is affording me quality of life.

The answer is: There is not such thing as a free lunch. Someone always pays.







 
LOL, ok if its so silly, then you tell me how a payment plan for a $100k bill would be structured.

Believe it or not it's like any other agreement. First everything is negotiable, your 100k is in all reality doesn't come close to the cost the dr's and the hosp will settle for never - mind once they know you're self insured you will be shocked at what does NOT need to be done.

The question was posed to someone willing and self insured, right? So why assume they can't afford the hefty payments. All in all it will be probably be less than or equal to having had insurance all along
 
He is paying for the care he needs. What is the problem?

Let me rephrase, since you like to weasel out of answering questions.

Should someone get the care that they need if they can't afford it? Yes or No

Since you like asking questions, let me put it to you this way. I pay for my bills and health care. Everyone should do the same. No one else is paying my way in life. No one else is affording me quality of life.

The answer is: There is not such thing as a free lunch. Someone always pays.








I didn't ask about you or your situation. I asked a yes or no question. Why can't you give a simple yes or no response?

Should someone get the care that they need if they can't afford it? Yes or No
 
LOL, ok if its so silly, then you tell me how a payment plan for a $100k bill would be structured.

Believe it or not it's like any other agreement. First everything is negotiable, your 100k is in all reality doesn't come close to the cost the dr's and the hosp will settle for never - mind once they know you're self insured you will be shocked at what does NOT need to be done.

The question was posed to someone willing and self insured, right? So why assume they can't afford the hefty payments. All in all it will be probably be less than or equal to having had insurance all along


So we're calling people without insurance, "self insured" now? LOL.

How did you put it...."that's so silly, I almost don't even know what to say"

I notice you're another person who refuses to answer my question about what the payments will look like. You all are "experts" without any actual answers.
 
Let me rephrase, since you like to weasel out of answering questions.

Should someone get the care that they need if they can't afford it? Yes or No

Since you like asking questions, let me put it to you this way. I pay for my bills and health care. Everyone should do the same. No one else is paying my way in life. No one else is affording me quality of life.

The answer is: There is not such thing as a free lunch. Someone always pays.








I didn't ask about you or your situation. I asked a yes or no question. Why can't you give a simple yes or no response?

Should someone get the care that they need if they can't afford it? Yes or No

Sorry, i dont do trick questions with catches in the end answer. The only answer you will get is that there is no such thin as a free lunch. Someone always pays.

The answer to your question is that they get the care they need now just as they would under obamacare. On someone else's dime.

Again do you want to pay my medical expenses? I will be happy to send you the bill.
 
Since you like asking questions, let me put it to you this way. I pay for my bills and health care. Everyone should do the same. No one else is paying my way in life. No one else is affording me quality of life.

The answer is: There is not such thing as a free lunch. Someone always pays.








I didn't ask about you or your situation. I asked a yes or no question. Why can't you give a simple yes or no response?

Should someone get the care that they need if they can't afford it? Yes or No

Sorry, i dont do trick questions with catches in the end answer. The only answer you will get is that there is no such thin as a free lunch. Someone always pays.

The answer to your question is that they get the care they need now just as they would under obamacare. On someone else's dime.

Again do you want to pay my medical expenses? I will be happy to send you the bill.

LOL, trick questions. Please, you're pathetic that you refuse to answer EVERYTHING I ask. Simple Yes or No questions at that. I'm done with you.
 
I didn't ask about you or your situation. I asked a yes or no question. Why can't you give a simple yes or no response?

Should someone get the care that they need if they can't afford it? Yes or No

Sorry, i dont do trick questions with catches in the end answer. The only answer you will get is that there is no such thin as a free lunch. Someone always pays.

The answer to your question is that they get the care they need now just as they would under obamacare. On someone else's dime.

Again do you want to pay my medical expenses? I will be happy to send you the bill.

LOL, trick questions. Please, you're pathetic that you refuse to answer EVERYTHING I ask. Simple Yes or No questions at that. I'm done with you.

That question is as trick of a loaded question as loaded trick questions comes. Sorry i don't play those kinds of games..

Especially since you display so clearly your christianity in how you use information as a form of attack. Sorry..loaded questions will get you shit.


Simple yes or no question...want me to send you my medical bills to pay for? see how that works?
 
Sorry, i dont do trick questions with catches in the end answer. The only answer you will get is that there is no such thin as a free lunch. Someone always pays.

The answer to your question is that they get the care they need now just as they would under obamacare. On someone else's dime.

Again do you want to pay my medical expenses? I will be happy to send you the bill.

LOL, trick questions. Please, you're pathetic that you refuse to answer EVERYTHING I ask. Simple Yes or No questions at that. I'm done with you.

That question is as trick of a loaded question as loaded trick questions comes. Sorry i don't play those kinds of games..

Especially since you display so clearly your christianity in how you use information as a form of attack. Sorry..loaded questions will get you shit.


Simple yes or no question...want me to send you my medical bills to pay for? see how that works?

My Christianity? WTF.

My questions were simple and FAR from loaded. You're just afraid that answering will reveal your complete hypocrisy.
 
I said extreme far left not liberal dems. And there is also extreme far right.
This bill will cost to much in the future just like all large government programs.

We've been paying too much for years, this legislation aims to correct how we pay which in turn will hopefully reduce the amount we pay.

No, it does'nt ,that is why everyones insurance has gone up. If you read that bill (which I have) it is not set up at all to lower the cost. They hope it will ,but it won't.

Correct me (with facts) if I'm wrong, but, everyones insurance has been going up for decades now and most of the new healthcare legislation hasn't even taken effect yet. Methinks the Peach is blowing smoke (politely said, says I).
 
LOL, trick questions. Please, you're pathetic that you refuse to answer EVERYTHING I ask. Simple Yes or No questions at that. I'm done with you.

That question is as trick of a loaded question as loaded trick questions comes. Sorry i don't play those kinds of games..

Especially since you display so clearly your christianity in how you use information as a form of attack. Sorry..loaded questions will get you shit.


Simple yes or no question...want me to send you my medical bills to pay for? see how that works?

My Christianity? WTF.

My questions were simple and FAR from loaded. You're just afraid that answering will reveal your complete hypocrisy.


No hypocrisy at all. I maintain that everyone should pay.
 

That question is as trick of a loaded question as loaded trick questions comes. Sorry i don't play those kinds of games..

Especially since you display so clearly your christianity in how you use information as a form of attack. Sorry..loaded questions will get you shit.


Simple yes or no question...want me to send you my medical bills to pay for? see how that works?

My Christianity? WTF.

My questions were simple and FAR from loaded. You're just afraid that answering will reveal your complete hypocrisy.


No hypocrisy at all. I maintain that everyone should pay.

Great.
 
What Constitutional authority does the federal government have to make insurance companies do any of those things?

If you were to ask Judge Vinson (the federal judge in Florida who ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional) that question he might quote from his ruling:

In light of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters, 322 U.S. 533, 64 S. Ct. 1162, 88 L. Ed. 1440 (1944), the "end" of regulating the health care insurance industry (including preventing insurers from excluding or charging higher rates to people with pre-existing conditions) is clearly "legitimate" and "within the scope of the constitution."​

Short answer is that no one disputes that the feds can regulate interstate commerce and that regulating the health insurance industry qualifies.

Isn't this one of the arguements? The administration says it does, but it certainly isn't cut and dry.

A person would have to go back in time and see why there is even a regulation on interstate commerce. It really did come down to each state taxing interstate commerce, which became a debacle and the feds solved it once and for all. But I certainly don't get it with insurance.
 
]




So we're calling people without insurance, "self insured" now? LOL.

How did you put it...."that's so silly, I almost don't even know what to say"

I notice you're another person who refuses to answer my question about what the payments will look like. You all are "experts" without any actual answers.

Ok I'm catching on here. You pick and choose what you want to answer and pretend others have done that.

I did answer your question and so did you. You not understanding is not my problem. If you're so sheltered that self insured goes over your head, there really is not much more to discuss.
 
]




So we're calling people without insurance, "self insured" now? LOL.

How did you put it...."that's so silly, I almost don't even know what to say"

I notice you're another person who refuses to answer my question about what the payments will look like. You all are "experts" without any actual answers.

Ok I'm catching on here. You pick and choose what you want to answer and pretend others have done that.

I did answer your question and so did you. You not understanding is not my problem. If you're so sheltered that self insured goes over your head, there really is not much more to discuss.

What question did you ask that I ignored?

I asked to see the math. Link me to the post where you laid out how the math would work. I'll wait.
 
What Constitutional authority does the federal government have to make insurance companies do any of those things?

If you were to ask Judge Vinson (the federal judge in Florida who ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional) that question he might quote from his ruling:

In light of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters, 322 U.S. 533, 64 S. Ct. 1162, 88 L. Ed. 1440 (1944), the "end" of regulating the health care insurance industry (including preventing insurers from excluding or charging higher rates to people with pre-existing conditions) is clearly "legitimate" and "within the scope of the constitution."​

Short answer is that no one disputes that the feds can regulate interstate commerce and that regulating the health insurance industry qualifies.

Isn't this one of the arguements? The administration says it does, but it certainly isn't cut and dry.

No, at least not in the two cases that ended up with a ruling against the mandate. The legitimacy of the insurance reforms themselves isn't being disputed.
 
Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports

What part of the far left are still refusing to see that this bill is not wanted by the American people? Why are we letting the extreme far left (about 8%) in this country, control us?
How about setting politics aside and using common sense?
This is another big government program and eventually all big government programs cost us all way to much money.
How about reforming the system, instead of a new government program? Things that we can all agree on, like no more pre existing conditions, keeping what you have when you lose your job, torte reform, children stay on their parents health care as long as they are in college? Not a set age limit. Pooling insurances together?
Huh? How about it people?

We should give them a new name, THE DEAF LEFT, sounds appropreaite....

It would be comical if it wasn't so true....

I was talking to one of my retired fire fighter clients a few weeks ago about their health insurance cost, their premiums are up $200 per month from '10 to '11, yeah big savings alright, this group is going to be forced out....

The premiums are up because the insurance companies are making damned sure they're going to bleed you dry before they can't anymore. It's a no-brainer. Ain't capitalism fun?
 

The systems are the same. So long as you have some paying and others leaching, the system is unsustainable. You hope it will be different. You want to see if it works.


No one can ever say with 100% guarantee about anything. Your idea was ridiculous and wouldn't work, your idea which has nothing to do with what this legislation does. Nice try though.


What a laugh! The legislation DOES make some pay and allow others not to pay. The exact same system we have now. Nothing is changing but allowing more to leach off of the ones who are paying. Its the same shell game, just different shells.

The only difference is that they are going to FORCE more people to pay.


It's designed so that people caught in the middle don't continue to get left out (earning too much money to qualify for Medicaid and not enough to pay for exorbitant health costs and health insurance).
 
No one can ever say with 100% guarantee about anything. Your idea was ridiculous and wouldn't work, your idea which has nothing to do with what this legislation does. Nice try though.


What a laugh! The legislation DOES make some pay and allow others not to pay. The exact same system we have now. Nothing is changing but allowing more to leach off of the ones who are paying. Its the same shell game, just different shells.

The only difference is that they are going to FORCE more people to pay.


It's designed so that people caught in the middle don't continue to get left out (earning too much money to qualify for Medicaid and not enough to pay for exorbitant health costs and health insurance).


I get that part... and they will still pay into it. That is not a problem.
 
Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports

What part of the far left are still refusing to see that this bill is not wanted by the American people? Why are we letting the extreme far left (about 8%) in this country, control us?
How about setting politics aside and using common sense?
This is another big government program and eventually all big government programs cost us all way to much money.
How about reforming the system, instead of a new government program? Things that we can all agree on, like no more pre existing conditions, keeping what you have when you lose your job, torte reform, children stay on their parents health care as long as they are in college? Not a set age limit. Pooling insurances together?
Huh? How about it people?

The Rasmussen Problem

Rasmussen's role in the public debate is problematic for several reasons. It's not altogether clear what causes him to consistently project results so much at odds with those of the rest of the polling community. But if there is something problematic about his methods, he has little incentive to correct it, because Rasmussen's business model increasingly relies upon maintaining the loyalty of staunch Republicans.
 
Look who is here. The guy who doesn't have insurance and is actually a part of the problem in this country yet has no answers for real life questions. Please, share your wisdom with us. :lol:
Hah... nice. The asshole who wants people dependent on government and grateful to him for putting them there.

Nice way to lie about me though. You're a real class(less) act. Thanks for illustrating your wisdom, sanity and tolerance for those poorer than you, dick.

Maybe someday your dream will come true and you can have me shot for not being a grateful slave to your party.

I'm lying about you? Do you have health insurance?

I actually do care about those people less fortunate then me, hence why I want to see EVERYONE get access to healthcare regardless of their income. Is that what you want?


I have to agree with Syrenn. The problem that comes with a system that covers everyone and all pre-existing conditions is COST. Sure this "illusion" of such a new Health Care coverage sounds nice, but when you include the "reality" of cost, it's unsustainable. Massachusetts went with such a system, and now they are fighting a drastic cost increase of 52%, ER costs that went up by 17%, increased waiting times in the ER due to overcrowding, and less quality of care. Just as Massachusetts has already proven, this Health Care bill will NOT reduce cost. However "cost" is just one part of the many issues facing a government controlled Health Care, another big issue is addressed in the article below.

Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

Medinnovation: Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb


In Massachusetts, Universal Coverage Strains Care
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05doctors.html
New York Times: By KEVIN SACK


AMHERST, Mass. — Once they discover that she is Dr. Kate, the supplicants line up to approach at dinner parties and ballet recitals. Surely, they suggest to Dr. Katherine J. Atkinson, a family physician here, she might find a way to move them up her lengthy waiting list for new patients.

Those fortunate enough to make it soon learn they face another long wait: Dr. Atkinson’s next opening for a physical is not until early May — of 2009.

This article was Published: April 5, 2008
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top