What About Jim Smith?

[Foxfyre]

Plug in any details you want. Make it as ideal as you want, but make it real world based and then we can have an honest conversation. What would payments look like?

Two-hundred thousand at 5% for 10 years is somewhere around $2100 a month.

Thanks! Now we know someone who can't afford insurance isn't going to make payments like that. I'll wait for one of the know-it-alls to chime in with their brilliant payment plan. But we all know they won't.

Before government got involved, hospital bills were a fraction of what they became after the government got involved, I negotiated payments with people who were without insurance or whose insurance didn't pay the whole bill. Many a time the charities or private contributors did chip in to help, but we worked out what the person could pay however long it took to pay it. The rule of thumb was if they could afford only $10/month, they paid $10/month. If they could afford more, they paid more. But nobody expected or got a free ride and all maintained their dignity in the process.

 

[EriktheRed]

Sounds good, Foxy. Sounds good. But it all boils down to one thing: "I've got mine - screw you!"

Which is liberal-speak for "I can't rebut Foxfyre's argument so I will attack Foxfyre." Not responsive, useful or helpful George. But it seems to be all too often the liberal way. (Also that of the right wingnuts who are using talking points instead of fully understanding a concept and therefore can't defend a concept any other way.)

I guess it's just the Conservative way to throw up your hands and say, "that just seems to be the liberal way" in reponse.


Btw, he's right. Your response is very heavy on "I've got mine-screw you".

 

[RDD_1210]

Two-hundred thousand at 5% for 10 years is somewhere around $2100 a month.

Thanks! Now we know someone who can't afford insurance isn't going to make payments like that. I'll wait for one of the know-it-alls to chime in with their brilliant payment plan. But we all know they won't.

Already answered early on in the thread...

Plenty of suggestions, but feel free to ignore them...

Someone's pants are on fire....

Link me to the post that outlined your payment plan proposal.

 

[RDD_1210]

Two-hundred thousand at 5% for 10 years is somewhere around $2100 a month.

Thanks! Now we know someone who can't afford insurance isn't going to make payments like that. I'll wait for one of the know-it-alls to chime in with their brilliant payment plan. But we all know they won't.

Before government got involved, hospital bills were a fraction of what they became after the government got involved, I negotiated payments with people who were without insurance or whose insurance didn't pay the whole bill. Many a time the charities or private contributors did chip in to help, but we worked out what the person could pay however long it took to pay it. The rule of thumb was if they could afford only $10/month, they paid $10/month. If they could afford more, they paid more. But nobody expected or got a free ride and all maintained their dignity in the process.

Was that before "government got involved" or before insurance companies took over the entire healthcare process?

 

[Foxfyre]

Sounds good, Foxy. Sounds good. But it all boils down to one thing: "I've got mine - screw you!"

Which is liberal-speak for "I can't rebut Foxfyre's argument so I will attack Foxfyre." Not responsive, useful or helpful George. But it seems to be all too often the liberal way. (Also that of the right wingnuts who are using talking points instead of fully understanding a concept and therefore can't defend a concept any other way.)

I guess it's just the Conservative way to throw up your hands and say, "that just seems to be the liberal way" in reponse.


Btw, he's right. Your response is very heavy on "I've got mine-screw you".

Only if you have a severe reading dysfunction.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Sounds good, Foxy. Sounds good. But it all boils down to one thing: "I've got mine - screw you!"

Which is liberal-speak for "I can't rebut Foxfyre's argument so I will attack Foxfyre." Not responsive, useful or helpful George. But it seems to be all too often the liberal way. (Also that of the right wingnuts who are using talking points instead of fully understanding a concept and therefore can't defend a concept any other way.)

I guess it's just the Conservative way to throw up your hands and say, "that just seems to be the liberal way" in reponse.


Btw, he's right. Your response is very heavy on "I've got mine-screw you".

As opposed to what, I've got yours... now screw you?

 

[RDD_1210]

Weird how it gets eerily quiet when you start asking for specifics.

 

[Dr.House]

Thanks! Now we know someone who can't afford insurance isn't going to make payments like that. I'll wait for one of the know-it-alls to chime in with their brilliant payment plan. But we all know they won't.

Already answered early on in the thread...

Plenty of suggestions, but feel free to ignore them...

Someone's pants are on fire....

Link me to the post that outlined your payment plan proposal.

Listen, dipshit... I'm not going to play your fucking games... I'm not giving you a fucking "payment plan"...

There are plenty of ways someone down on their luck can get assistance and help outside daddy gubmint... These were suggested early in this thread...

I would hope those who value personal responsibility will seek out those options and not sit and wait for the government to save them...

I'll leave you to flounder around with your rant about evil conservatives who want cancer patients to die...

 

[RDD_1210]

Already answered early on in the thread...

Plenty of suggestions, but feel free to ignore them...

Someone's pants are on fire....

Link me to the post that outlined your payment plan proposal.

Listen, dipshit... I'm not going to play your fucking games... I'm not giving you a fucking "payment plan"...

There are plenty of ways someone down on their luck can get assistance and help outside daddy gubmint... These were suggested early in this thread...

I would hope those who value personal responsibility will seek out those options and not sit and wait for the government to save them...

I'll leave you to flounder around with your rant about evil conservatives who want cancer patients to die...

So what you're saying is that you have no plan, nor did you answer that question like you claimed.

Neg-repping me tells me you've had enough of being made to look like an idiot. I'll stop replying to you now since I can tell you give up and have no answers.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No to mention this is a thread about some fictitious person, with a fictitious disease, that cost a fictitious amount of money and now has a fictitious payment plan for a fictitious number of years.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Jim Smith shouldn't have started a family if he wasn't prepared to take care of them.

 

[RDD_1210]

No to mention this is a thread about some fictitious person, with a fictitious disease, that cost a fictitious amount of money and now has a fictitious payment plan for a fictitious number of years.

Which part of "Jims" scenario isn't realistic?

 

[Foxfyre]

No to mention this is a thread about some fictitious person, with a fictitious disease, that cost a fictitious amount of money and now has a fictitious payment plan for a fictitious number of years.

But somehow it is now all the conservatives fault.

 

[Foxfyre]

Weird how it gets eerily quiet when you start asking for specifics.

I gave you some specifics. Now YOU reciprocate with some specifics.

1. How much less would healthcare cost without government meddling and interference?

2. How much would private charities help out Jim?

3. Is Jim not to be held in any way accountable for not including healthcare insurance in his budget?

4. How much are YOU personally willing to help out Jim?

5. Do you honestly believe that government that usually absorbs half to two-thirds of every tax dollar collected into the bureaucracy can provide healthcare more inexpensively than can a St. Judes that depends on charitable contributions but uses them ALL for healthcare delivery?

6. If private insurance and medical fees were affordable, would you rather take care of those yourself at a lower cost than what taxes, fees, regulations, and mandates will cost you if the government does it? Would you like to have a choice?

 

[kwc57]

For the record, I understand why the mandate is in place for health insurance. Do I blindly now support mandates for anything and everything? Of course not, but I have a nasty habit of evaluating things on their own merit and using my brain to do a bit of critical thinking and making decisions on a case by case basis.

So, when are you going to break it down for me? You said you would if I asked. I'm still waiting but strangely enough you are avoiding coming through on your promise.

I understand why some feel a legislated mandate is needed. I'm a compassionate person and want to see people get the care they need too. That being said, you can't just toss the constitution aside whenever you feel like it to solve a problem. The problem has to be solved in a manner that is constitutional. Do you rob a bank when you need money or do you go about it in a more legal manner? See, this isn't hard. Constitutionally, you can not mandate that citizens buy a product, whether it be apples/healthcare or oranges/cars regardless of how righteous you feel your casue is.

So I take it you were in favor of the public option then?

Oh and thanks for the response, but none of that addresses that your fear scenario is completely based on nothing.

Fear scenario? Perchance are you using recreational drugs today?

 

[RDD_1210]

I understand why some feel a legislated mandate is needed. I'm a compassionate person and want to see people get the care they need too. That being said, you can't just toss the constitution aside whenever you feel like it to solve a problem. The problem has to be solved in a manner that is constitutional. Do you rob a bank when you need money or do you go about it in a more legal manner? See, this isn't hard. Constitutionally, you can not mandate that citizens buy a product, whether it be apples/healthcare or oranges/cars regardless of how righteous you feel your casue is.

So I take it you were in favor of the public option then?

Oh and thanks for the response, but none of that addresses that your fear scenario is completely based on nothing.

Fear scenario? Perchance are you using recreational drugs today?

Do you ever answer anything directly?

 

[Mr Natural]

Thanks! Now we know someone who can't afford insurance isn't going to make payments like that. I'll wait for one of the know-it-alls to chime in with their brilliant payment plan. But we all know they won't.

Before government got involved, hospital bills were a fraction of what they became after the government got involved, I negotiated payments with people who were without insurance or whose insurance didn't pay the whole bill. Many a time the charities or private contributors did chip in to help, but we worked out what the person could pay however long it took to pay it. The rule of thumb was if they could afford only $10/month, they paid $10/month. If they could afford more, they paid more. But nobody expected or got a free ride and all maintained their dignity in the process.

Was that before "government got involved" or before insurance companies took over the entire healthcare process?

Before the insurance companies got involved.

And is there anything more repulsive than making money off of people's misery.

It's like capitalism run amok.

 

[kwc57]

Depends on the good/service. Auto insurance mandates are ok, for example.


Now what about this car question you keep dodging?

So you're going to play the stoopid game too? 10 years ago, who would have ever thought Congress would pass a law forcing Americans to purchase a product......any product.....for any reason? If they can do it with healthcare, why not something else that our nany state deems we need? I chose a car out of the air. It could just as easily be an insurance policy to pay for your funeral. You know, there are a lot of people who can't pay for those either. Expand your timy mind a little to understand the discussion at hand. Regardless of whether you think everyone has a "right" to healthcare, is it constitutional to mandate citizens purchase it or face a fine?

Take a trip to Tuscon sometime and look around at the acres and acres of junked military aircraft that we've been forced to buy.

Did junior high let out early today? Does your mom know you're using her computer?

 

[kwc57]

So it's Universal Health Care or you advocate letting people die in the streets? See... here's the problem...

Exactly. The same argument I've made multiple times now. Either big government takes care of Jim or we want him to die. How tunnel visioned and narrow minded do you have to be to see that as the only options? (Not to mention mean spirited)

You have yet to answer the question posed in the OP. Once again: Assume the Republicans have their way and everyone is responsible for getting their own health insurance. Someone is going to die without expensive medical treatment they cannot afford and they have no health insurance.

What would you do in such a situation - just let the person die?

Honestly George, you sound like a broken record. This has been answered numerous times in this thread. Are you not reading it? Getting sick while not having health insurance does not equate to certain death. By law, you can not be refused treatment. There are numerous ways to seek aid in paying your bills. Pay attention.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks! Now we know someone who can't afford insurance isn't going to make payments like that. I'll wait for one of the know-it-alls to chime in with their brilliant payment plan. But we all know they won't.

Before government got involved, hospital bills were a fraction of what they became after the government got involved, I negotiated payments with people who were without insurance or whose insurance didn't pay the whole bill. Many a time the charities or private contributors did chip in to help, but we worked out what the person could pay however long it took to pay it. The rule of thumb was if they could afford only $10/month, they paid $10/month. If they could afford more, they paid more. But nobody expected or got a free ride and all maintained their dignity in the process.

Was that before "government got involved" or before insurance companies took over the entire healthcare process?

Once the government got involved, THAT screwed over the private health insurance industry. Equipment, pharmaceutical companies, and other medical supplies providers kicked up their prices because the government would pay it, no questions asked. The private insurance companies had to follow suit. And once the prices were up there and the government started lowballing the payments, the unpaid costs were shifted to private patients further driving up insurance costs. Now the whole system is skewed.

The amount Medicare shows that it pays for OTC Prilosec is about $38 for a month's supply. I can almost always find it on sale on the shelf at Cosco or Wal-mart for $24 to $28. The amount shown that Walgreen's bills for a medicare prescription is $80.00. I'm sure they aren't collecting that from anybody but there is no way that the drug costs anywhere near that much. The money becomes a shell game and incomprehensible to just about everybody.

Before Medicare, a hospital bill was itemized, understandable, and reasonable.

When I paid the doctor out of pocket, he got all the money and could pay out of it what he needed to for his office staff and overhead. But when my tax dollar goes to the government, at least half of it is siphoned off by the bureaucracy and it takes two to three times as much money to get the same dollars to the doctor.

And it is facts like THAT that the bleeding hearts who think conservatives are so heartless aren't even willing to look at, much less discuss objectively.